Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 3:19
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.
19 29. The Purpose and Use of the Law in relation to the Justification of the Sinner
19. If then the promise is not affected by the law, so that no new condition of justification is imposed by it, the question naturally arises, ‘Why was the law given?’ To this the Apostle has an answer ready. It was not given to limit, much less to supersede the promise. The promise and the law are like two circles, which touch, but do not intersect each other: each perfect of its kind, because both alike Divine in their origin. But in answering the question which he has anticipated, St Paul shews the inferiority of the law in several particulars to the earlier and ‘better covenant’ (Heb 8:6). (1) The law condemns: it cannot give life, because no man can fulfil its conditions. It provokes transgression, convinces of sin, and denounces punishment. (2) It was superadded as a parenthetical and temporary dispensation, commencing with the national life of the Jewish people, and terminating with the Advent of the Seed to whom the promise was given. (3) It was not delivered immediately, like the promises to Abraham, but mediately by Moses in the presence of Angels as attesting witnesses. (4) It was a contract between God and man, life depending on the fulfilment of its terms, and was therefore conditional, and not absolute like the promise.
it was added ] Yet not so as to interfere with the promise. If any one man had succeeded in rendering perfect obedience to the law, he would have been justified, no less than they to whom the righteousness of Another was imputed by faith.
because of transgressions ] Dismissing the explanations, ‘to check’ or ‘to punish’ transgressions, we may make St Paul his own interpreter. In Rom 5:20 he says that the law ‘intervened that the offence might abound’; in Rom 7:13, that the commandment was given in order that sin ‘might be shewn to be sin that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.’ Nay, he testifies that himself had not known sin ‘except through the law’ (Rom 7:7), for ‘through the law is the knowledge of sin’. And yet further, ‘the strength of sin is the law’ (1Co 15:56). From a comparison of these and other passages we infer that the purpose for which the law was given was not on the one hand the restraint or punishment of sin, nor on the other the increase of evil in the world. The evil existed already and was active. But its real nature, as an offence against God, rebellion against His authority, was not felt until that authority was expressed in the form of command and prohibition, that is, of law. The barrier which obstructs the force of the stream does not add to its force; it reveals the force by the resistance which it offers.
till the seed should come ] This marks the limits of its operation.
the seed ] That is, Christ. Surely it was by no accident that the term employed in the Abrahamic covenant is the same which is used in the yet earlier gospel (Gen 3:15). The seed of Abraham is the seed of the woman.
to whom the promise was made ] Lit. has been made. The promise was not annulled by the law. It continued in force, awaiting its fulfilment. This seems to be expressed by the perfect tense.
and was ordained by angels ] ‘having been enjoined, or enacted, by means of angels’. In Deu 33:2 we read, R.V. ‘The Lord came from Sinai, And rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.’ The expression, ‘with ten thousands of His saints’ is, literally, ‘from (amidst) myriads of holiness’, or ‘holy myriads.’ The R.V. ‘the ten thousands of holy ones’ is not a literal rendering, but a paraphrase denoting the angels; and though the LXX. render the clause, ‘with myriads of Kades’, they add (apparently from a different Hebrew text), ‘on His right angels (were) with Him’. The older versions and ‘expositors generally agree in the common rendering’. Lightfoot. That angels were present as attesting witnesses at the giving of the law was a common opinion among the Rabbinic teachers, and allusion is made to it not only by St Paul in this passage, but by St Stephen (Act 7:53), by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. Gal 2:2), and by Josephus ( Antt. xv. 5. 3). Regarded as the retinue of the Supreme Lawgiver, the angels by their presence added solemnity to the occasion. But that very presence emphasized the fact that the law was of the nature of a contract, conditional, not absolute, a transaction between two parties, not the spontaneous revelation of mercy by Him who ‘is One’.
by the hand of ] A Hebraism nearly equivalent to, ‘by means of’ or simply ‘by’. It is so used frequently in the O.T., e.g. Num 4:37, when Moses and Aaron are said to have numbered the people ‘according to the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses [27] ’. See Act 7:35.
[27] The LXX. translates, ‘by the voice of the Lord in the hand of Moses.’
a mediator ] The noun thus rendered occurs in four other passages of the N. T. (1Ti 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24), and in all of them refers to our Lord Jesus Christ. In the three latter He is expressly termed the Mediator of the new or better covenant. Here the mediator is associated with the first covenant. In the epistle to Timothy our Lord is a mediator ‘between God and man ’. Here the mediator is between God and the people of Israel, i.e. of course, Moses. These considerations, together with a due regard to the general scope of the passage, lead to the rejection of the view that in this passage the Mediator is our Lord indeed such a view may astonish us, though supported by such eminent names as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. Neither the noun nor the corresponding verb (see Heb 6:17) is found in the LXX., though its reference to Moses in the passage before us is confirmed by his own declaration, ‘The Lord our God made a covenant with you in Horeb. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the word of the Lord’, Deu 5:2; Deu 5:5. The ‘covenant’ was the law of the Ten Commandments.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Wherefore then serveth the law? – This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the Law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing; and is the Law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this, the apostle replies that the Law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator.
It was added – ( prosetethe). It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement on the part of God for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that.
Because of transgressions – On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the Law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter people from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince people of it, and thus to be ancillary to, and preparatory to the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the Law of God as given to apostate man, and this use of the Law still exists. This effect of the Law is accomplished:
- By showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.
(2)It shows us the nature and extent of transgression by showing us how far we have departed from it.
(3)It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus suited to reveal its true nature.
(4)It is suited to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is; see the notes at Rom 4:15; Rom 7:7-11.
(5)It thus shows its own inability to justify and save people, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead people to the cross of the Redeemer; see the note at Gal 3:24. At the same time,
- The Law was given with reference to transgressions in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties.
When Paul says that the Law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the Law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes (Calvin), but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows people their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the Law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which people must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that Law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of people.
Till the seed should come … – The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied; see Gal 3:16. It is not implied here that the Law would be of no use after that; but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should come, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing people the nature of transgression and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete and in many respects unintelligible until he came – as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save people, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying people, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven.
And it was ordained by angels – That is, the Law was ordained by angels. The word ordained here diatageis usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here that the Law was ordained by angels, see the note at Act 7:53. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the Law, but it was a common opinion among the Jews that the Law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion; compare Heb 2:2. The sentiment here is that the Law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels; an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the Law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man.
In the Septuagint Deu 33:2 there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is: From his right hand went a fiery law for them. The Septuagint renders this, His angels with him on his right hand; compare Josephus, Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the Law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels; Deu 33:2. The Hebrew is, Yahweh came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paron, and he came (literally) with ten thousands of holiness; that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads meribbot qodesh. By the holy myriads mentioned here what can be meant but the angels? The word holy in the Scriptures is not given to storms and winds and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings.
The same sentiment is found in Psa 68:17 – The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary. Does not this evidently imply that when he gave the Law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? see Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565-567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the Law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world, that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man.
In the hand – That is, under the direction, or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels or by their disposition, it was under the control of a Mediator Rosenmuller, however, and others suppose that this means simply by (per); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a Mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the Mediator here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the Law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation however will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word Mediator.
Of a Mediator – The word Mediator Mesites means properly one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius, or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson (Lexicon), Chandler, and many others suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should he regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are:
(1) That the name Mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures.
(2) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament.
(3) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument, on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostles reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the Law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him until he, the promised seed, should come.
(4) It is only by such an interpretation that the following vexed verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible.
These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the Law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For:
(1) It was given hundreds of years after the promise.
(2) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to, and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise.
(3) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that plan should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing that the Law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 3:19
Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of trasgressions.
The function of the law
Of what use, then, is the law, if (as you assert) it is not simply a codicil to–a substitute for–Gods promise to Abraham? It was added. Not being a part of the original scheme, but made necessary on account of the hardness of mens hearts, it came in as a sort of marginal addition or parenthesis in the dealings of God with the Jews. The moral atmosphere was changed. In circumstances of amity the promise had been given, God speaking to Abraham as a man with his friend; in circumstances of discord, with suitable accompaniment of hailstones and coals of fire, the law was promulgated and enforced. The function of the law was to assist as an ally: to be subsidiary to the promise, and help towards its fulfilment. This it did by revealing mens deeds to them in their true light–showing them their own sinfulness in the sight of God, and their own inability to do anything towards mending matters–a necessary preliminary to their attainment of that faith which would lead them to embrace the promise. The law, again, was merely a temporary, enactment; its work would be done when He Should appear to whom the promise had been made. Still further: the provisional nature of the law may be perceived, if we consider the manner of its promulgation. It was ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. Direct had been Gods communication with Abraham when He gave the promise; but at the giving of the law He delivered His decrees to angels, and the angels entrusted them to a second intermediate agent, viz., Moses. Now the existence of a mediator (or go-between) implies duality, separation, disunion; whereas a promise is a simple direct transaction requiring no such intervention. If there had not been discord, at the time of the giving of the law, a mediator would have been out of place; he would have had no business there at all. There was discord at that time; and for that reason Moses was appointed to mediate. But this, instead of proving that the law is antagonistic to the promise, proves exactly the contrary, for–God is one. If the law had been intended to annul the promise, it would necessarily follow that God had changed His mind, His dealings with the children of Israel through Moses would contradict His dealings four hundred and thirty years before with Abraham. Such a thought cannot for a moment be tolerated. The Lord our God is one Lord; with Him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. He is ever one and the same; and the eternal principles upon which He acts can never alter. However different and opposed to one another His various dispensations towards mankind may at first sight appear, a secret thread of harmony runs through them all. His unity of purpose is expressed from first to last, in unity of plan. He will justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision by the same faith–in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was made. Now it is easy to see in what sort of relation the law stands to the promise. The work of the law is a work of discipline. It presents to view the sterner side of the Divine character; it shows God frowning at sin, and holding aloof from the sinner; it teaches man that by no effort of his own can he regain that communion with his Maker which was forfeited at the fall. But if that communion is not regained, man is lost–hopelessly lost for ever. Is there no other means of recovering the forfeited possession, and of once more enjoying the privilege of basking in the light of the Divine countenance? Yes, there is; and surely the law has been a most useful and valuable institution, if it has led men to ask that question. The promise, given hundreds of years before the law, still remains in force. Nothing can abrogate it–seeing that God is one and the same both in essence and in will. If in the time of Abraham He was willing to justify by faith, He is willing to justify by faith now, and He will continue in the same mind to the end of time and throughout eternity. Thus is the law our pedagogue, taking us by the hand, and leading us back over rough and devious paths to that earlier promise which was made to Christ the true seed of Abraham, and, in Christ, to all who believe. (J. Henry Burn, B. D.)
The law
I. Its purpose.
1. To reveal sin.
2. To convict of sin.
3. To warn respecting its punishment.
Consequently we should examine ourselves by the law.
(1) When any one sin is forbidden, all sins of the same kind are forbidden.
(2) A negative commandment includes the affirmative.
(3) Every command must be understood with a curse.
(4) Look particularly to the first commandment, which forbids the first motions of our heart against God; and to the last, which forbids the first motions of our heart against man.
II. Its duration.
1. Particularly: till Christ should come in the case of the Jews.
2. Generally: till God has revealed His Son in us, before which the law, although abrogated as a dispensation, has still a condemning power.
III. The method of its promulgation.
1. Guilty man could not have received it direct.
2. It was therefore given
(1) by angels (Deu 33:2; Psa 68:17; Act 7:53).
(a) They were attendants on God at the time of its delivery.
(b) They were witnesses and approvers of its delivery.
(c) Perhaps its commands were uttered by angels (Heb 2:2).
(2) By the instrumentality of Moses (Deu 5:5).
3. Learn then
(1) to reverence it,
(2) to fear to break it,
(3) to repent of breaking it,
(4) to look for shame and confusion in the case of impenitence in the presence of God and the angels. (W. Perkins.)
The present use of the law
I. To the unconverted.
1. To restrain and limit transgression.
2. To bring to light transgressions.
3. To convince of transgression.
4. To prepare men to seek and receive the mercy of God in Christ.
II. To the justified.
1. It is a rule by which they are to be governed.
2. It serves to warn and guard them against the commission of sin.
3. To make them grateful for the privileges they enjoy.
4. To keep them in close dependence on Jesus.
In conclusion: the final judgment must be administered in accordance with the provisions of the law. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)
I. The law was like a torch carried into the dark crevices and cellars of human nature that it might reveal the foul shapes that lurked there, and rouse man to long for a righteousness which it could not itself confer.
II. In the process of doing this, the law aggravated the very evil it brought to light: the presence of a Divine rule which forbade the indulgence of human passion had the effect of irritating those passions into new self-asserting activity (Rom 7:7). In the absence of the law, the sinful tendency had been inert, but when the commandment came sin revived and I died.
III. Not that the law was answerable for this result. In itself it was holy, just, and good; the cause lay in the sinful tendency of fallen human nature.
IV. So the law inflicted on the conscience that was not fatally benumbed an overwhelming conviction that righteousness in the way of legal obedience was a thing impossible; and was very far from furnishing a man with a real righteousness, of making him what he should be, correspondent to the true ideal.
V. This conviction prepared men for a righteousness which should not be the product of human efforts, but a gift from heaven; a righteousness to be attained by the adhesion of faith to the perfect Moral Being, Jesus Christ, so that the believers life becomes incorporate with His, and man becomes such as he should be, viz., justified by faith. (Canon Liddon.)
The revealing power of the law
The law acts as a surgeon does when he takes the film from the eye of the blind. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The restraining power of the law
A steam-engine at work in a manufactory is so quiet and gentle that a child might put it back. But interpose a bar of iron, and it cuts through as though it were so much leather. Introduce a human limb–it whirls round, and the form of man is in one moment a bleeding, mangled, shapeless mass. Now, observe, it is the restraint that manifests the unsuspected power. In the same way law discovers the strength of evil in our hearts. Not till a man has felt something resisting the evil does he know its force. (F. W. Robertson.)
Law
I. To prepare the way for the gospel.
II. To constitute a period of probation.
III. To bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24).
IV. To guide us in the path of holiness.
V. To vindicate the justice of God in the punishment of sinners. (J. Lyth.)
Christ our Mediator
As, when a king is angry with a subject, the kings son marries the daughter of the subject, and brings him into favour with the king again: so, when God the Father was angry with us, Christ married Himself to our nature, and now mediates for us with His Father, and brings us to be friends again; and now God looks upon us with a favourable aspect. As Joab pleaded for Absalom, and brought Him to King David, and David kissed Him; so doth Jesus Christ ingratiate us into the love and favour of God. Therefore He may well be called a peacemaker, having taken our flesh upon Him, and so made peace between us and His angry Father. (T. Watson.)
During one of the journeys of Queen Victoria, a little boy was desirous of seeing her. He determined to go direct to the castle where she was residing, and ask to see her. He was stopped at the gate by the sentry, who demanded what he wanted. I want to see the queen, he replied. The soldier laughed at the boy, and with the butt-end of his musket pushed him away, and told him to be off immediately, or he would shoot him. The boy turned to go away, and gave vent to his grief in tears. He had not gone far when he was met by the Prince of Wales, who inquired why he was crying. I want to see the queen, replied the boy, and that soldier wont let me.–Wont he? said the prince: then come along with me, and Ill take you to the queen. He accordingly took him by the hand, and led him towards the castle. On passing the sentinel, he, as usual, presented arms to the prince; and the boy became terrified, and ran away, fearing that the soldier was going to shoot him. The prince soon quieted his fears, and led him past the gates into the presence of her Majesty. The queen with surprise, inquired of her son whom he had there; and, upon being informed of what had taken place, she laughed heartily, spoke kindly to her little visitor, and to his great delight dismissed him with a piece of money. As the prince presented the boy to the queen, so Christ presents us to His Father. (T. Watson.)
The use of the law is
I. Moral–it was brought in to detect–expose–restrain–punish transgression.
II. Preparatory–it prepared the way for the gospel, developing human weakness–pointing to Christ its substance and antitype.
III. Divinely ordained–by angels (Deu 33:2; Heb 2:2)–in the hand of a mediator, Moses.
IV. Temporary–because mediatorial (see Gal 3:15-22, also Lisco, in loco)–but the promise is everlasting, for God is one.
V. Harmonious with the gospel–it does not propose to communicate righteousness and life–but concludes all under sin.
VI. Conducive to faith–by convincing men of sin–excluding all other hope–shutting them up to the faith of Christ–in whom the promise is given. (J. Lyth.)
The nature of the law
I. In the first place, I will endeavour to define what is meant by the law of God is the abstract. The simple sense of the term law, and the most general sense, is this–it is that mode by which an agent proceeds. The mode by which the government of a country proceeds to rule its subjects, is called the law of that government. The term will be found to have the same signification when applied to the very highest class of objects–I mean, the government of God: the constant procedure of the Divine will, with respect to any object in any part of His dominions, is called the law of God, in respect of that particular object. While we are upon the nature of the law, let it be observed, chat these modes by which the Divine Being governs either the moral or the natural world, are not merely arbitrary regulations imposed upon its objects solely with a design to exercise His authority; but, that they are the necessary perceptions of the Divine mind, as to what is proper or benevolent, in regard to each of the objects to which they relate. Whence it follows, that the law of God, in relation to any class of beings in His government (but, in relation to man, pre-eminently) is the result of infinite wisdom and infinite goodness, the Lawgiver Himself being infinitely wise and good. One more remark may be added, which is, that the law of God, being the transcript of His own benevolence and wisdom, proposes and accomplishes the best possible results; promotes happiness to the utmost extent of which the object may be capable. This law may be expressed and promulgated by different modes. God has impressed His laws upon all nature below man. He did not render the obedience of man a matter of mechanical certainty; but the result of free choice.
II. This leads me, secondly, to consider the modes whereby God hath promulgated His laws. These are two. He wrote the law originally upon the mind of Adam in the garden of Eden; and when it was effaced in a great measure by his apostasy, and almost obliterated from the mind of man, through the love of sin, he republished it to the world in the form of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai.
III. Thirdly, to remark on the different kinds of the law, which we must distinguish in perusing the Holy Scriptures. Although all that was republished on Sinai to the Jews, and at all other times, goes under the general term of the law of God; yet, upon close inspection, this law will be found to consist of three kinds, which are clearly distinct from one another. These three kinds of law are, the judicial law, or the state law of the Jews; the ceremonial law, that is to say, that law which prescribed the religious rites and services of the Jews under the Old Testament dispensation; and the moral law, which prescribed their conduct, and our conduct, as men. It has been inferred that the moral law was intended to be perpetual from the very mode of its promulgation. Let not this be dismissed as trifling. Everything in the promulgation of the law was the effect of premeditation on the part of the Divine mind, who doeth nothing in vain. Every part of it had a signification attached to it. The judicial part of the law, and the ceremonial part, were delivered to Moses privately, during the forty days in which he was on the Mount; but the moral law was delivered from the mouth of God Himself, in the presence of the whole assembled camp. The ceremonial part of the law was written in a perishable book; the moral part of the law was written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone, the emblem of perpetuity; and after wards, when the first tables of the law were destroyed by the zeal of Moses, they were restored by the same finger upon two other similar tables. Now, we must be persuaded that every particular in that solemn event of giving the law was the result of design: and that the moral part of the law was intended to be perpetual, seems the most probable meaning of the distinction made in the mode of promulgating the ceremonial and the moral law. But we have conclusive argument to prove the universal obligation and perpetuity of the law. That it is intended to be universal is most evident, because it was only the republication of the law which was imprinted on the mind of Adam in Eden, and which was effaced from his mind by his disobedience. But, as Adam was the head and father of all, and as all that had been prescribed to him first was intended to be taught to all his posterity, we infer that the moral law was intended to be perpetual and universally binding. Again, it is one great requisition of the gospel, that it should be preached to every creature; and that its object should be to testify toward Jews and Greeks, repentance toward God. But, if repentance be required of every creature, it follows that every creature is a sinner. Yet, every creature cannot be a sinner by disobedience to the judicial law, which was only for the Jews as a nation, nor by disobedience to the ceremonial law, which was to cease at Christs coming. But, by the disobedience of law, mankind became sinners, and consequently, the subject of the gospel must be the moral law; therefore, the moral law is universal. The precepts of the moral law have all of them respect only to the moral character of man, properly so called. They relate not to outward observances–not to the things which go into a man, but to the things which come out of him, namely, the thoughts and intents of his heart. Our Lord said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This could not be the judicial law, which was to cease with the existence of the Jews as a nation. It could not mean the ceremonial law, which was done away by Christ. This declaration refers to the moral law, and there is ample reason for believing that his assertion should be true. (J. P. Denham, M. A.)
Jesus Christ the true and only Mediator between God and man
St. Paul commences his explanation of the use of the law of Moses, by saying that it was added because of transgressions. It was added, therefore was not, so to speak, included in the original purpose of God–because of transgressions, not that the law made transgression, but that it was a test whereby transgression might be–
1. Manifested and exposed;
2. Avoided and corrected.
Thus we find the use of the law to have consisted in being a witness to God between the patriarchal and the Christian dispensations. It was meant to be a standard of Gods righteousness, and thus a means of convincing man of his own unrighteousness. It would appear, then, that the one great object the apostle had in view in this Epistle to the Galatians was to shew the temporary character of the law, and that it only filled a sphere of subordinate usefulness in the economy of the Divine government; and so, by lowering their ideas of its dignity, to exalt their impressions of the higher dignity of evangelical truth, and of the greater necessity of faith in the evangelical promises. And this object we find wrought out in the text, wherein he shows its fleeting character in the assertion that it was only added until the seed should come. The word angels is capable of two interpretations.
1. The word translated angels, and from which our English word angel is derived, in its simple sense means messengers. It does not mean necessarily that spiritual and (to us) invisible messenger which we call an angel, but may mean any one entrusted with the performance of anothers will, or the execution of a commission. Thus we may take the law in its fullest sense, comprehending the moral as well as the ritual observances enjoined by God, and revealed by Him at various times through patriarchs, lawgivers, prophets, and ready scribes (like Ezra); and suppose these to have been the messengers by whom it was ordained; or (more literally) set in order, until the time of the Mediator arrived, when all the ordinances alike of ceremonial and moral law were realized in Him, even Jesus Christ, who fulfilled all righteousness.
2. But I confess that this interpretation, however satisfactory it may appear in itself as explanatory of the meaning of the apostles words, does not appear to me to elucidate the sense of the apostle upon the point in question. I prefer, therefore, to abide by the second interpretation, which, while it narrows its signification, applies more closely and explains more satisfactorily its meaning. St. Paul, you will bear in mind, was still dwelling on the temporary character of the law. This was the key-note of the whole chant in praise of the superiority of faith. He appears, therefore, in this expression to make a distinct allusion to the giving of the law to Moses, the mediator between God and His people Israel after the patriarchal times had ceased. I conceive hence that the law alluded to in the text was the ceremonial law ordained, or set in order by angelic ministers and conveyed to Moses in the Mount, when for forty days he was permitted to commune with Jehovah, and entrusted to his hands as the mediator appointed by God to convey His will to His chosen people Israel. Now, if, as I believe, this be a correct explanation of the meaning of the apostle, we shall find, on carrying out the idea contained therein, that it has a very important connection with the following portion of the text, Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. This connection may not at first appear so clear as I hope to make it; but, if I understand the apostles argument, his meaning was to this effect: I have shown you the real use of the law, have explained that it was not Gods original covenant, but was only intended to fill up a gap, as it were, between the declaration and the fulfilment of the antecedent promise; that during that gap or interval, it was useful in convincing of sin, and thus leading to a necessity of faith, but had in itself no justifying power like the faith already illustrated in Abraham when he believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now, I have a still farther object in view: I wish to prove its inferiority, both in the mode of its revelation and in the person of its mediator. He wished, I say, to prove the inferiority of the ritual law. First: in the mode of its revelation. The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. How far superior then must have been that promise which came direct from God Himself. The law was calculated to depress the thoughts to earth by its carnal rites and burthensome observances. How far superior, then, must have been that promise which elevated the thoughts, hopes, affections at once to the throne and mercy seat of God. The law was intended only to have a typical efficacy by shadowing forth good things yet to come. How far superior then in their fulfilment must have been those abiding realities, those spiritual substances which were thus foreshadowed. Second: In the person of its Mediator. The mediator of the covenant of the law was Moses, the servant of God, but the Mediator of the covenant of promise was Jesus the Son of God, and that we may duly appreciate the special, the specific superiority, in this character of the latter over the former, let us consider what was the office of, and what was the necessary qualification for a mediator. A mediator is one who seeks to reconcile differences between conflicting persons. In order to do this successfully between man and man, he must be utterly unbiassed by the prejudices of either, while he must feel a sympathy with the affections of both. In the arrangement of human differences we know by experience that if a person attempts to mediate between two, while all his sympathies are enlisted on the side of one, his office is sure to fail, even if his mediation be not rejected. Therefore, when the apostle says, A mediator is not a mediator of one, he at once shows the inefficiency of Moses for his office; because, being only man, he could not mediate on the side of Deity. He could convey Gods commands to His people. He could even act out Gods will in his own person. But not being a partaker of the Divine nature, he could not mediate as a Divine participator in the covenant. But contrast this with the Mediator of the covenant of promise, and regard His immeasurable superiority. Behold the development of the mystery contained in the concluding words of the text, But God is one! But while thus congratulating ourselves upon an undeserved, and I trust richly appreciated mercy, it is necessary heedfully to avoid one dangerous error–viz., not to degrade our faith into a mere result of external evidences. The mind and intellect being convinced will not always influence the conduct, will certainly fail to change the heart, and cannot of itself sanctify the will. Holy Scripture tells us that it is with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. (Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham.)
Law contrasted with promise
1. The law has no organic relation to the promise; was neither a new form of it, nor a codicil to it; did not spring out of it, but was superadded as a foreign and unallied element.
2. The law has functional connection with sin; the promise regards an inheritance.
3. The law was provisional and temporary only: the promise has no limitation of time, and is not to be superseded.
4. The law was given by a species of double intervention–the instrumentality of angels and the mediation of Moses; the promise was given directly and immediately from Gods own lips, no one stepping in between its Giver and its recipient–neither angel ordaining it nor man conveying it.
5. The promise, as resting solely on God, was unconditioned, and therefore permanent and unchanging; the law, interposed between two parties, and specially contingent on a human element, was liable to suspension or abolition.
6. This law, so necessitated by sin, so transient, so connected with angelic ordinance and human handling, was an institute later also by far in its imagination. (John Eadie, D. D.)
Inferiority of the law to the dispensation of grace
Had the law then no purpose? Yes; but its very purpose, its character and history, betray its inferiority to the dispensation of grace.
1. Instead of justifying, it condemns; instead of giving life, it kills; it was added to reveal and multiply, transgressions.
2. It was but temporary; when the seed came to whom the promise was given, it was annulled.
3. It did not come direct from God to man. There was a double interposition, a twofold mediation, between the giver and the recipient. There were the angels, who administered it as Gods instruments; there was Moses (or the high priest) who delivered it to man.
4. As follows from the idea of mediation, it was of the nature of a contract, whereas the promise, proceeding from the sole fiat of God, is unconditional and unchangeable, (Bishop Lightfoot.)
The uses of the law
The law was never intended to be the means of conveying life. Its office was to bring home to men the necessity of seeking life elsewhere. It was subservient and preparatory to the gospel. The general reason for which it was given was because of transgressions.
1. To restrain sin. As a curb. It holds men in check wherever it is known. Without some such restraint this earth would soon become a hell.
2. To reveal sin (Rom 7:7-9). The sediment at the bottom of a pool is there, but its existence does not become apparent until the pool is stirred. The chamber may be full of all that is unseemly and unsightly, but the fact is not known so long as darkness prevails. So the law lets in the light of Gods truth upon mans evil heart.
3. To provoke sin (Rom 5:20). The very fact that fruit is forbidden makes it to be more desired. The heart chafes at restraint. Just as a barrier thrown across a stream causes it, however smooth and quiet before, to rage and fret against the new obstruction, if perchance it may sweep it away; so does the law, with its demands, warnings, threatenings, stir up the enmity of the heart, and provoke it to rebel against God.
4. To condemn sin. the law, when it has once found a man, holds him fast in its grip. It has but two sentences–death or life. It reveals to man his own helpless misery, and leaves him in it. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)
The purposes the law was intended to serve
Take a birds-eye view of the works of the law in this world. Lo, I see the law given upon Mount Sinai. The very hill doth quake with fear. Lightnings and thunders are the attendants of those dreadful syllables which make the hearts of Israel to melt. Sinai seemeth altogether on the smoke. The Lord came from Paran, and the Holy One from Mount Sinai; He came with ten thousand of His saints. Out of His mouth went a fiery law for them. It was a dread law even when it was given; and since then from that Mount of Sinai an awful lava of vengeance has run down, to deluge, to destroy, to burn, and to consume the whole human race, if it had not been that Jesus Christ had stemmed its awful torrent, and bidden its waves of fire be still. Apart from Christ and His gospel, the law is nothing but the condemning voice of God thundering against mankind. So it is natural to ask the question in the text; and the answer to that question is–
1. To manifest to man his guilt. Asleep on the edge of the precipice, God sends the law as a messenger to open mens eyes and show them their danger.
2. To slay all hope of salvation by a reformed life. Future obedience can be no atonement for past guilt, even if perfect obedience for the future could be guaranteed, which is far from the case.
3. To show man the misery which will fall upon him through his sin.
4. To show the value of a Saviour. As foils set off jewels, and dark spots make bright tints more bright, so does the law make Christ appear the fairer and more heavenly. How harsh and discordant is the voice of the law with its cure; how sweet and harmonious that of Jesus, saying, Come unto Me.
5. To keep Christian men from self-righteousness. When we read the law we see our faults as in a mirror. If we would be saved, we must come with nothing of our own to Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Because of transgressions:–
Relation of the law to sin
The transgressions on account of which the law was added refer, I apprehend, to the criminal conduct of the Israelites, which rendered the introduction of such a system as the law necessary in order to the attainment of the great object of the covenant about Christ, and justification by faith through Him. This arrangement was first made known in the first promise, but from the prevalence of human depravity it seems to have been in the course of ages almost entirely forgotten. All flesh corrupted its way on the earth. The deluge swept away the whole inhabitants of the ancient world with the exception of one family, among whom the true religion was preserved. In the course of no very long period, the great body of their descendants, the inhabitants of the new world, became idolaters. To prevent the utter extinction from among mankind of the knowledge of God, and the way of obtaining His favour, Abraham was called, and a plainer revelation made to him of the Divine purposes of mercy, and his decendants by Isaac and Jacob chosen as the depositaries of this revelation, till He should come to whom the revelation chiefly referred. In consequence of the descendants of Jacob coming down into Egypt, they gradually contracted a fondness for Egyptian superstitions, and were fast relapsing into a state of idolatry, which must soon have terminated in their being lost among the nations; and the revelation with which they were entrusted being first corrupted and then forgotten, God raised up Moses as their deliverer, brought them out of Egypt, and placed them under that very peculiar order of things which we commonly term the Mosaic Law–an order of things admirably adapted to preserve them a distinct and peculiar people–and by doing so, to preserve the revelation of mercy through the Messiah, of which they were the depositaries, and to prepare abundant and satisfactory stores of evidence and illustration when the great Deliverer appeared–evidence that He was indeed the Person to whom the hopes of mankind had from the beginning been directed, an illustration rendering in some measure level to human apprehension what otherwise would have been unintelligible. Every person acquainted with the principles of depraved human nature, and with the history of the Jews at and subsequent to their deliverance from Egypt, will see that their transgressions rendered some such arrangement as the Mosaic law absolutely necessary, on the supposition that the Messiah was not to appear for a course of ages, and that the revelation of salvation through Him was to be preserved in the world by means of the Jewish people. We are not so much, if at all, to consider the Mosaic law as a punishment for the transgressions of the descendants of Abraham. We are rather to consider it as the means which their transgressions rendered necessary in order to secure the object of their being chosen to be Gods peculiar people. To be preserved from being involved in the ignorance, and idolatry, and vice in which the surrounding nations were sunk, was a blessing, at whatever expense it might be gained. At the same time, had it not been for the transgressions of the Israelites, the more spiritual and less burdensome order of things under which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were placed might have been continued, and the law as a distinct order of things never have existed because never needed. (John Brown, D. D.)
The law, then, was given for these two purposes
1. To show the people what actions were sins, that they might not fall into them without knowledge and without warning.
2. To restrain them from those sins against the law of nature and the covenant with God, through fear of the punishment which should follow, and thus root out from them those habits of wickedness which they had contracted in Egypt. In both these respects was the necessity of a mediator, a redeemer, kept before the eyes of the people. Their weakness taught them the need of a Saviour, who should strengthen them; the sight of their sinfulness directed them to a Redeemer, through whom they should obtain deliverance from present sin and forgiveness for the past. For the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners; and therefore, since the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
The inferiority of the law to the covenant of promise which was fulfilled by the gospel is considered in these particulars.
1. The law represses outward transgressions through the fear which it excites; the gospel effects an inward transformation in man by love.
2. Instead of justifying, which is the work of the gospel, the law condemns; instead of giving life, it does but kill.
3. The law was temporary; it was only to continue until the coming of the seed.
4. The law did not come to man directly from the mouth of God as the gospel does, but by the intervention of angels. Until Christ came, man indeed was not brought face to face with God, but the will of the Father was revealed to the world by the ministry of angels. Only in these last days hath He spoken unto us by His Son. The law depended for its fulfilment on the observance of its conditions by the two contracting parties, whilst the promise of God to Abraham is absolute. (W. Denton, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 19. Wherefore then serveth the law?] If the law does not annul the Abrahamic covenant, and cannot confer salvation on its votaries, why did God give it? This was a very natural objection, and must arise in the mind of any Jew who had paid attention to the apostle’s reasoning.
It was added because of transgressions] It was given that we might know our sinfulness, and the need we stood in of the mercy of God. The law is the right line, the straight edge, that determines the obliquity of our conduct. See Clarke on Ro 4:15; and especially See Clarke on Ro 5:20, where this subject is largely discussed, and the figure explained.
Till the seed should come] The law was to be in force till the advent of the Messiah. After that it was to cease.
It was ordained by angels] The ministry of angels was certainly used in giving the law; see Ps 68:17; Ac 7:53; and Heb 2:2; but they were only instruments for transmitting; Moses was the mediator between God and the people, De 5:5.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Wherefore then serveth the law? Some might say: To what purpose was the law given? As if there could be no use of it unless it were available to justification.
It was added because of transgressions; it was (saith the apostle) given after the promise, not to supply something wanting as to justification, to prescribe some works that must be added; but either to restrain sin, 1Ti 1:9, or to show and discover sin, to make men see that they stood in need of Christ: see Rom 7:13.
Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made: till Christ the promised Seed should come, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom 10:4; upon whose coming the law contained in ordinances ceased. That Christ is here to be understood by the seed, is plain by the addition,
to whom the promise was made. Some here understand by the seed, Christ and the church, (which both make up Christ mystical), and interpret this text by Eph 2:14, till the Jews and Gentiles should be both made one. This law (he saith)
was ordained by angels. Luke, Act 7:38, speaks of the law as published by one angel: the apostle, Heb 2:2, calls it, the word spoken by angels. We read of no angels, Exo 19:20, nor of any of the saints; yet, Deu 33:2; Moses saith God came from Sinai, with ten thousand saints. The law was given either by the ministry of an angel, or by God attended with angels.
In the hand of a mediator; that is, (say some), under the power of Christ the Mediator; but by the mediator is rather to be understood Moses, which agreeth with Deu 5:5, where Moses telleth the Jews, that he stood between the Lord and them at that time, to show them the word of the Lord; nor is Christ any where called the Mediator of the old, but of the new testament, Heb 8:6; Heb 12:24.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. “Wherefore then serveththe law?” as it is of no avail for justification, is it eitheruseless, or contrary to the covenant of God? [CALVIN].
addedto the originalcovenant of promise. This is not inconsistent with Ga3:15, “No man addeth thereto”; for there the kind ofaddition meant, and therefore denied, is one that would addnew conditions, inconsistent with the grace of the covenant ofpromise. The law, though misunderstood by the Judaizers as doing so,was really added for a different purpose, namely, “because of(or as the Greek, ‘for the sake of’) the transgressions,”that is, to bring out into clearer view the transgressions ofit (Ro 7:7-9); to makemen more fully conscious of their “sins,” by beingperceived as transgressions of the law, and so to make themlong for the promised Saviour. This accords with Gal 3:23;Gal 3:24; Rom 4:15.The meaning can hardly be “to check transgressions,”for the law rather stimulates the corrupt heart to disobey it(Rom 5:20; Rom 7:13).
till the seedduringthe period up to the time when the seed came. The law was apreparatory dispensation for the Jewish nation (Ro5:20; Greek, “the law came in additionally andincidentally“), intervening between the promise and itsfulfilment in Christ.
come(Compare “faithcame,” Ga 3:23).
the promise (Ro4:21).
ordainedGreek,“constituted” or “disposed.”
by angelsas theinstrumental enactors of the law [ALFORD]God delegated the law to angels as something rather alien to Him andsevere (Act 7:53; Heb 2:2;Heb 2:3; compare De33:2, “He came with ten thousands of saints,” that is,angels, Ps 68:17). He reserved”the promise” to Himself and dispensed it according to Hisown goodness.
in the hand of amediatornamely, Moses. De 5:5,”I stood between the Lord and you”: the verydefinition of a mediator. Hence the phrase often recurs, “By thehand of Moses.” In the giving of the law, the “angels”were representatives of God; Moses, as mediator, represented thepeople.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore why then serveth the law?…. If this be the case, might an objector say, why was the law given? what ends and purposes are to be served by it? of what use can it be? there had as good been no law at all, if the inheritance is not of it, and there is no justification by it. To which it is answered,
it was added because of transgressions; four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made with Abraham; it did not succeed it, nor take the place of it, and so make it null and void; but was over and above added unto it, for the sake of restraining transgressions; which had there been no law, men would not have been accountable for them; and they would have gone into them without fear, and with impunity; but the law was given, to lay a restraint on men, by forbidding such and such things, on pain of death; and also for the detecting, discovering, and making known transgressions, what they are, their nature and consequences; these the law charges men with, sets them before them, in their true light and proper colours; and convicts them of them, stops their mouths, and pronounces them guilty before God: moreover, this law entered in, over and above any other revelation God was pleased to make, “that the offence might abound”, Ro 5:20 either that particular offence, the sin of Adam, the apostle is there speaking of; the heinous nature of which, its aggravated circumstances, and the justness of its imputation to his posterity, were more clearly discerned by this law; and so the Syriac version here renders it in the singular number,
, “because of transgression”; or all other offences and transgressions, which are increased through the multiplicity of precepts, and attended with more aggravating circumstances, than if no law was given, and more eagerly pursued after, through the prohibition of them; such being the corrupt nature of man, that the more anything is forbidden, the more desirous it is of it: add to all this, that the law was given for the punishing of transgressions, for which it curses, and threatens with death, and inflicts it on Christless sinners: hence it is clear there can be no justification by it, and yet it is not useless and insignificant:
till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made; either Christ the seed of the woman, and of Abraham, who was to come in the flesh, and is come; and to whom the grand promise of life, and all the promises of the covenant were made; not for himself, but for those he represented, and in whom they are all secure: until whose coming to finish transgression, and bring in everlasting righteousness, the law was to continue in the form in which, and the use for which it was added, and then to cease as the ministration of Moses; for through the coming of Christ it received its full accomplishment, and came to an end; the ceremonial law was utterly abolished, and the moral law ceased to be a covenant of works, though it continues a rule of walk and conversation; and the whole Mosaic economy was no more: or else the seed here intends the spiritual seed of Abraham; particularly among the Gentiles, to whom the promise of blessedness, of justification, and eternal life was made; and the sense be, that till such time that a generation of faithful men, of believers in Christ, should arise among the Gentiles, the law was to continue with the Jews; but when they should spring up, the middle wall of partition should be broken down, and Abraham’s spiritual seed among Jews and Gentiles make up one body, one people, and be fellow heirs and partakers of the promise of God in Christ, through the Gospel:
and it was ordained by angels; not Moses and Aaron, and Joshua, as some say; for though Moses was concerned in the giving of the law, yet not Aaron nor Joshua, nor are any of them ever called angels; but the holy elect angels are here meant, the ten thousands of saints, or holy ones, God came to Mount Sinai with, and the Lord was among, in the holy place; see De 33:2 and so the Jews say l that the Lord appeared on Mount Sinai gloriously, , “with companies”, or “troops of angels”, to give the law to his people: and this may be said to be “ordained” by them, inasmuch as it might be written and spoken by them, as the instruments and ministers God made use of; for though the tables are said to be the work of God, and the writing the writing of God, and to be written with the finger of God, and he is said to speak all the words of it, yet this hinders not, but that all this might be done by the means of angels; who might be employed in disposing and fitting the stones in the form they were, and in writing the law upon them; hence it is said to be given by the disposition of angels, Ac 7:53 and certain it is, that it was spoken by them, Heb 2:2 they forming in the air those articulate and audible sounds, when the law was delivered; who were also concerned in the thunderings and lightnings, and in the blowing of the trumpet, that waxed louder and louder at that time:
in the hand of a mediator; not Christ, as many interpreters, ancient and modern, have thought; for though he was present at the giving of the law, as appears from Ac 7:38 and is the Mediator between God and man, and had the law in his hand, out of which it went forth as the lawgiver; and as the surety of his people has fulfilled it, and by so doing put an end to it, and delivered them from the curse and condemnation of it; yet he is the Mediator of the new and better covenant, not the ministration of death, but of life; and so Moses and Christ, the law and Gospel, the old and the new covenant, are continually opposed to each other; besides, the mediator here seems to be represented as inferior to the angels, and as receiving the law into his hands from them, by whom it was ordained; which to conceive of Christ, is very much to the demeaning and lessening of him. Moses is the mediator here meant, who stood between God and the people of Israel; not to make peace between them, but to show the word of God from him to them, and this at their own request; see De 5:5, and in his hand the tables of the law were, when he came down from the mount, and was a typical mediator of Christ. So the Jews say of him, that
“he was , “a mediator” between them and God m.”
l Targum in 1 Chron. xxix. 11. m Tzeror Hammor, fol. 136. 1, 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Design of the Law; The True Children of Abraham. | A. D. 56. |
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. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The apostle having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he did too much derogate from the law, and render it altogether useless, he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given. It might be asked, “If that promise be sufficient for salvation, wherefore then serveth the law? Or, Why did God give the law by Moses?” To this he answers,
I. The law was added because of transgressions, v. 19. It was not designed to disannul the promise, and to establish a different way of justification from that which was settled by the promise; but it was added to it, annexed on purpose to be subservient to it, and it was so because of transgressions. The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God’s peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it; for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. iii. 20), and the law entered that sin might abound, Rom. v. 20. And it was also intended to restrain them from the commission of sin, to put an awe upon their minds, and be a curb upon their lusts, that they should not run into that excess of riot to which they were naturally inclined; and yet at the same time it was designed to direct them to the true and only way whereby sin was to be expiated, and wherein they might obtain the pardon of it; namely, through the death and sacrifice of Christ, which was the special use for which the law of sacrifices and purifications was given.
The apostle adds that the law was given for this purpose till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; that is, either till Christ should come (the principle seed referred to in the promise, as he had before shown), or till the gospel dispensation should take place, when Jews and Gentiles, without distinction, should, upon believing, become the seed of Abraham. The law was added because of transgressions, till this fulness of time, or this complete dispensation, should come. But when the seed came, and a fuller discovery of divine grace in the promise was made, then the law, as given by Moses, was to cease; that covenant, being found faulty, was to give place to another, and a better, Heb 8:7; Heb 8:8. And though the law, considered as the law of nature, is always in force, and still continues to be of use to convince men of sin and to restrain them from it, yet we are now no longer under the bondage and terror of that legal covenant. The law then was not intended to discover another way of justification, different from that revealed by the promise, but only to lead men to see their need of the promise, by showing them the sinfulness of sin, and to point them to Christ, through whom alone they could be pardoned and justified.
As a further proof that the law was not designed to vacate the promise, the apostle adds, It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. It was given to different persons, and in a different manner from the promise, and therefore for different purposes. The promise was made to Abraham, and all his spiritual seed, including believers of all nations, even of the Gentiles as well as the Jews; but the law was given to the Israelites as a peculiar people, and separated from the rest of the world. And, whereas the promise was given immediately by God himself, the law was given by the ministry of angels, and the hand of a mediator. Hence it appeared that the law could not be designed to set aside the promise; for (v. 20), A mediator is not a mediator of one, of one party only; but God is one, but one party in the promise or covenant made with Abraham: and therefore it is not to be supposed that by a transaction which passed only between him and the nation of the Jews he should make void a promise which he had long before made to Abraham and all his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles. This would not have been consistent with his wisdom, nor with his truth and faithfulness. Moses was only a mediator between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham; and therefore the law that was given by him could not affect the promise made to them, much less be subversive of it.
II. The law was given to convince men of the necessity of a Saviour. The apostle asks (v. 21), as what some might be willing to object, “Is the law then against the promises of God? Do they really clash and interfere with each other? Or do you not set the covenant with Abraham, and the law of Moses, at variance with one another?” To this he answers, God forbid; he was far from entertaining such a thought, nor could it be inferred from what he had said. The law is by no means inconsistent with the promise, but subservient to it, as the design of it is to discover men’s transgressions, and to show them the need they have of a better righteousness than that of the law. That consequence would much rather follow from their doctrine than from his; for, if there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness would have been by the law, and in that case the promise would have been superseded and rendered useless. But that in our present state could not be, for the scripture hath concluded all under sin (v. 22), or declared that all, both Jew and Gentile, are in a state of guilt, and therefore unable to attain to righteousness and justification by the works of the law. The law discovered their wounds, but could not afford them a remedy: it showed that they were guilty, because it appointed sacrifices and purifications, which were manifestly insufficient to take away sin: and therefore the great design of it was that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe, that being convinced of their guilt, and the insufficiency of the law to effect a righteousness for them, they might be persuaded to believe on Christ, and so obtain the benefit of the promise.
III. The law was designed for a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, v. 24. In the foregoing verse, the apostle acquaints us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic economy, that before faith came, or before Christ appeared and the doctrine of justification by faith in him was more fully discovered, they were kept under the law, obliged, under severe penalties, to a strict observance of the various precepts of it; and at that time they were shut up, held under the terror and discipline of it, as prisoners in a state of confinement: the design of this was that hereby they might be disposed more readily to embrace the faith which should afterwards be revealed, or be persuaded to accept Christ when he came into the world, and to fall in with that better dispensation he was to introduce, whereby they were to be freed from bondage and servitude, and brought into a state of greater light and liberty. Now, in that state, he tells them, the law was their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. As it declared the mind and will of God concerning them, and at the same time denounced a curse against them for every failure in their duty, so it was proper to convince them of their lost and undone condition in themselves, and to let them see the weakness and insufficiency of their own righteousness to recommend them to God. And as it obliged them to a variety of sacrifices, c., which, though they could not of themselves take away sin, were typical of Christ, and of the great sacrifice which he was to offer up for the expiation of it, so it directed them (though in a more dark and obscure manner) to him as their only relief and refuge. And thus it was their schoolmaster, to instruct and govern them in their state of minority, or, as the word paidagogos most properly signifies, their servant, to lead and conduct them to Christ (as children were wont to be led to school by those servants who had the care of them) that they might be more fully instructed by him as their schoolmaster, in the true way of justification and salvation, which is only by faith in him, and of which he was appointed to give the fullest and clearest discoveries. But lest it should be said, If the law was of this use and service under the Jewish, why may it not continue to be so under the Christian state too, the apostle adds (v. 25) that after faith has come, and the gospel dispensation has taken place, under which Christ, and the way of pardon and life through faith in him, are set in the clearest light, we are no longer under a schoolmaster–we have no such need of the law to direct us to him as there was then. Thus the apostle acquaints us for what uses and purposes the law served; and, from what he says concerning this matter, we may observe,
1. The goodness of God to his people of old, in giving the law to them; for though, in comparison of the gospel state, it was a dispensation of darkness and terror, yet it furnished them with sufficient means and helps both to direct them in their duty to God and to encourage their hopes in him.
2. The great fault and folly of the Jews, in mistaking the design of the law, and abusing it to a very different purpose from that which God intended in the giving of it; for they expected to be justified by the works of it, whereas it was never designed to be the rule of their justification, but only a means of convincing them of their guilt and of their need of a Saviour, and of directing them to Christ, and faith in him, as the only way of obtaining this privilege. See Rom 9:31; Rom 9:32; Rom 10:3; Rom 10:4.
3. The great advantage of the gospel state above the legal, under which we not only enjoy a clearer discovery of divine grace and mercy than was afforded to the Jews of old, but are also freed from the state of bondage and terror under which they were held. We are not now treated as children in a state of minority, but as sons grown up to a full age, who are admitted to greater freedoms, and instated in larger privileges, than they were. This the apostle enlarges upon in the following verses. For, having shown for what intent the law was given, in the close of the chapter he acquaints us with our privilege by Christ, where he particularly declares,
(1.) That we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, v. 26. And here we may observe, [1.] The great and excellent privilege which real Christians enjoy under the gospel: They are the children of God; they are no longer accounted servants, but sons; they are not now kept at such a distance, and under such restraints, as the Jews were, but are allowed a nearer and freer access to God than was granted to them; yea, they are admitted into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of his children. [2.] How they come to obtain this privilege, and that is by faith in Christ Jesus. Having accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they are hereupon admitted into this happy relation to God, and are entitled to the privileges of it; for (John i. 12) as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his name. And this faith in Christ, whereby they became the children of God, he reminds us (v. 27), was what they professed in baptism; for he adds, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Having in baptism professed their faith in him, they were thereby devoted to him, and had, as it were, put on his livery, and declared themselves to be his servants and disciples; and having thus become the members of Christ, they were through him owned and accounted as the children of God. Here note, First, Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church, as circumcision was into that of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus appointed it to be so, in the commission he gave to his apostles (Matt. xxviii. 19), and accordingly it was their practice to baptize those whom they had discipled to the Christian faith; and perhaps the apostle might take notice of their baptism here, and of their becoming the children of God through faith in Christ, professed therein, to obviate a further objection, which the false teachers might be apt to urge in favour of circumcision. They might be ready to say, “Though it should be allowed that the law, as given at mount Sinai, was abrogated by the coming of Christ the promised seed, yet why should circumcision be set aside too, when that was given to Abraham together with the promise, and long before the giving of the law by Moses?” But this difficulty is sufficiently removed when the apostle says, Those who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ; for thence it appears that under the gospel baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and that those who by baptism are devoted to Christ, and do sincerely believe in him, are to all intents and purposes as much admitted into the privileges of the Christian state as the Jews were by circumcision into those of the legal (Phil. iii. 3), and therefore there was no reason why the use of that should still be continued. Note, Secondly, In our baptism we put on Christ; therein we profess our discipleship to him, and are obliged to behave ourselves as his faithful servants. Being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, that as he died and rose again, so, in conformity thereunto, we should die unto sin, and walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3; Rom 6:4); it would be of great advantage to us did we oftener remember this.
(2.) That this privilege of being the children of God, and of being by baptism devoted to Christ, is now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, giving the Jews on many accounts the pre-eminence: that also made a difference between bond and free, master and servant, and between male and female, the males being circumcised. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus; as the one is not accepted on the account of any national or personal advantages he may enjoy above the other, so neither is the other rejected for the want of them; but all who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex, or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him.
(3.) That, being Christ’s, we are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Their judaizing teachers would have them believe that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved: “No,” says the apostle, “there is no need of that; for if you be Christ’s, if you sincerely believe on him, who is the promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, you therefore become the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful, and as such are heirs according to the promise, and consequently are entitled to the great blessings and privileges of it.” And therefore upon the whole, since it appeared that justification was not to be attained by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ, and that the law of Moses was a temporary institution and was given for such purposes as were only subservient to and not subversive of the promise, and that now, under the gospel, Christians enjoy much greater and better privileges than the Jews did under that dispensation, it must needs follow that they were very unreasonable and unwise, in hearkening to those who at once endeavoured to deprive them of the truth and liberty of the gospel.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
What then is the law? ( ?). Or, why then the law? A pertinent question if the Abrahamic promise antedates it and holds on afterwards.
It was added because of transgressions ( ). First aorist passive of , old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to verses 15ff., because in Paul’s mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart “in no way modifying its provisions” (Burton). is the adverbial accusative of which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in 1Jo 3:12 it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke 7:47; 1John 3:12) or telic (Titus 1:5; Titus 1:11; Judg 1:16). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather “to make transgressions palpable” (Ellicott), “thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law” (Rendall). , from , is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in Ro 2:23.
Till the seed should come ( ). Future time with and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by as in verse 16.
The promise hath been made (). Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of as in II Macc. 4:27.
Ordained through angels ( ‘ ). Second aorist passive participle of (see on Mt 11:1). About angels and the giving of the law see on De 33:2 (LXX); Acts 7:38; Acts 7:52; Heb 2:2; Josephus (Ant. XV. 5. 3).
By the hand of a mediator ( ). is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the LXX. , from is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Wherefore then serveth the law ? [ ] . Lit. what then is the law, or, why then the law ? What is its meaning and object? A natural question of an objector, since, according to Paul ‘s reasoning, salvation is of promise and not of law.
It was added [] . Comp. pareishlqen came in beside, Rom 5:20. Not as an addition to the promise, which is contrary to verse 18, but as a temporary, intermediate institution, in which only a subordinate purpose of God was expressed.
Because of transgressions [ ] . In order to set upon already existing sins the stamp of positive transgression of law. Comp. Rom 4:5; Rom 5:13. Note the article, the transgressions, summing them up in one mass. Not, in order to give the knowledge of sins. This, it is true, would follow the revelation of sins as transgressions of law (Rom 3:20; Rom 7:13); but,
1. the phrase because of transgressions does not express that thought with sufficient definiteness. If that had been his meaning, Paul would probably have written thv ajpignwsewv twn parabasewn carin on account of the knowledge of transgressions.
2. He meant to describe the office of the law as more than giving the knowledge of sins. Its office was, in revealing sin as positive transgression, to emphasize the objective, actual, contrary fact of righteousness according to the divine ideal, and to throw sin into contrast with that grand ideal. The seed. Christ, whose advent was to introduce the fulfillment of the promise (verse 16).
Ordained [] . The verb means to arrange, appoint, prescribe. Of appointing the twelve, Mt 11:1; of enjoining certain acts, Luk 8:55; Luk 17:10; 1Co 7:17; of the decree of Claudius, Act 18:2. Here, describing the form or mode in which the law was added; the arrangement made for giving it.
By angels [ ] . Better, through angels as agents and intermediaries. Comp. eijv diatagav ajggelwn with reference to arrangements of angels; or as it was ordained by angels, Act 7:53. The tradition of the giving of the law through angels appears first in Deu 33:2 (but comp. LXX and the Hebrew). See Heb 2:2; Act 7:53. In the later rabbinical schools great importance was attached to this tradition, and it was not without influence in shaping the doctrine of angelic mediation which formed one of the elements of the Colossian heresy. Josephus (Ant. 14 5, 3) relates that Herod excited the Jews to battle by a speech, in which he said that they had learned the holiest of laws from God through angels. It is a general O. T. idea that in great theophanies God appears surrounded with a heavenly host. See Hab 3:8; Isa 66:15; Zec 14:5; Joe 3:11. The idea of an angelic administration is also familiar. See Exo 23:20; Exo 32:34; Exo 33:14; Isa 63:9; Jos 5:14. The agency of angels indicates the limitations of the older dispensation; its character as a dispensation of the flesh.
In the hand of a mediator [ ] . En ceiri by the agency of. A Hebraism. In this sense, not elsewhere in N. T. See LXX, Gen 38:20 Lev 16:21. In the hand of Moses, Lev 26:46; Num 4:37, 41, 45, 49. Comp. sun ceiri ajggelou with the hand of the angel, Act 7:35. For mesithv mediator, see on 1Ti 2:5, and comp. Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. It is a later Greek word signifying also umpire, arbitrator, and appears in LXX only in Job 9:33. The mediator here is Moses, who is often so designated by rabbinical writers. The object is not (as Meyer) to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination, but to indicate the inferior, subordinate position held by the law in comparison with the promise, not the gospel. A glorification of the law cannot be intended, since if that were contemplated in the mention of angels and the mediator, the statement would tend to the disparagement of the promise which was given without a mediator. Paul, in the section 3 6 – 9, 7, aims to show that the law does not, as the Judaisers assume, stand in a relation to the divine plan of salvation as direct and positive as does the promise, and that it has not, like the promise and its fulfillment, an eternal significance. On the contrary, it has only a transitory value. This estimate of the law does not contradict Paul ‘s assertions in Rom 7:12 – 25. In representing the law as subordinate and temporary he does not impugn it as a divine institution.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
PURPOSE OF THE LAW TO POINT TO CHRIST
1) “Wherefore then serveth the law?” (ti oun ho nomos;) “why, therefore, have the law?” Paul then gave six reasons the law was given or purposes it served Gal 3:19-25. (1) “Because of transgression,” (2) to “conclude all under sin,” (3) to last “till the seed should come” (4) to “shut man up” to faith as avenue of escape from sin, (5) “as a pedagogue-guide, (6) Since Christ came none is under the law-pedagogue longer.
2) “It was added because of transgression,” (ton parabaseon charin prosetethe) “It was added by reason of the transgressions,” a breach of Divine principles before the law was given. The law did not make Sin, but as a mirror it was given to measure, to reflect to man what sin was and how it was considered in the eyes of God, Rom 4:15; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13.
3) “Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made,” (achris an elthe to sperma ho epengeltai) “until the seed should come, to whom it has been promised; The “it” refers to the “heir-setting or inheritance,” made in promise to Christ and His heirs, Gal 4:4-5. The term “receive the adoption of sons,” regers to the heir-setting of an inheritance, available and promised not only to natural Israel but also to the redeemed of Christ, in His church in this age, Heb 10:8-9. Christ took away, the law program of worship and service that He might establish the second, the church, Mat 5:17-18; Mat 16:18; Act 20:28; Eph 3:21.
4) “And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” (diatageis di’ angellon en cheiri mesitou) “Being ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator,” The term ordained means “sanctioned by angels,” (1) in the annunciation of His begettal, (2) in the annunciation of His birth, (3) In the annunciation of His resurrection, and (4) In the annunciation of His return to earth, when He shall return as “King of kings and Lord of lords”, (Mat 1:20-21; Luk 2:9-14; Mat 28:2-7; Act 1:10-11). The “it” ordained by angels seems to indicate the promised inheritance that was delivered by angels came to pass in Christ, in due time, Gal 4:4-5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
When we are told that the law has no influence in obtaining justification, various suggestions immediately arise, that it must be either useless, or opposed to God’s covenant, or something of that sort. Nay, it might occur, why should we not say of the law, what Jeremiah says of the New Testament, (Jer 31:31,) that it was given at a later period, in order to supply the weakness of the former doctrine? Objections of this kind must be answered, if Paul wished to satisfy the Galatians. First, then, he inquires, — what is the use of the law? Having come after the promise, it appears to have been intended to supply its defects; and there was room at least for doubting, whether the promise would have been effectual, if it had not been aided by the law. Let it be observed, that Paul does not speak of the moral law only, but of everything connected with the office held by Moses. That office, which was peculiar to Moses, consisted in laying down a rule of life and ceremonies to be observed in the worship of God, and in afterwards adding promises and threatenings. Many promises, no doubt, relating to the free mercy of God and to Christ, are to be found in his writings; and these promises belong to faith. But this must be viewed as accidental, and altogether foreign to the inquiry, so far as a comparison is made between the law and the doctrine of grace. Let it be remembered, that the amount of the question is this: When a promise had been made, why did Moses afterwards add that new condition, “If a man do, he shall live in them;” and, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them?” (Lev 18:5; Deu 27:26.) Was it to produce something better and more perfect?
19. Because of transgressions. The law has manifold uses, but Paul confines himself to that which bears on his present subject. He did not propose to inquire in how many ways the law is of advantage to men. It is necessary to put readers on their guard on this point; for very many, I find, have fallen into the mistake of acknowledging no other advantage belonging to the law, but what is expressed in this passage. Paul himself elsewhere speaks of the precepts of the law as profitable for doctrine and exhortations. (2Ti 3:16.) The definition here given of the use of the law is not complete, and those who refuse to make any other acknowledgment in favor of the law do wrong. Now, what is the import of the phrase, because of transgressions ? It agrees with the saying of philosophers, that “The law was made for restraining evil-doers,” and with the old proverb, “From bad manners have sprung good laws.” But Paul’s meaning is more extensive than the words may seem to convey. He means that the law was published in order to make known transgressions, and in this way to compel men to acknowledge their guilt. As men naturally are too ready to excuse themselves, so, until they are roused by the law, their consciences are asleep.
“
Until the law,” says Paul, “sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.” (Rom 5:13.)
The law came and roused the sleepers, for this is the true preparation for Christ. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20.) Why?
“
That Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Rom 7:13.)
Thus, “the law was added because of transgressions,” in order to reveal their true character, or, as he tells the Romans, that it might make them to abound. (Rom 5:20.)
This passage has tortured the ingenuity of Origen, but to no purpose. If God summon consciences to his tribunal, that those qualities in their transgression, which would otherwise give them pleasure, may humble them by a conviction of guilt, — if he shake off the listlessness which overwhelmed all dread of his judgment-seat, — if he drag to light; sin, which lurked like a thief in the den of hypocrisy, — what is there in all this that can be reckoned absurd? But it may be objected: “As the law is the rule of a devout and holy life, why is it said to be added ‘because of transgressions,’ rather than ‘because of obedience?’” I answer, however much it may point out true righteousness, yet, owing to the corruption of our nature, its instruction tends only to increase transgressions, until the Spirit of regeneration come, who writes it on the heart; and that Spirit is not given by the law, but is received by faith. This saying of Paul, let the reader remember, is not of a philosophical or political character, but expresses a purpose of the law, with which the world had been always unacquainted.
Till the seed should come. If it has respect to seed, it must be to that on which the blessing has been pronounced, and therefore it does not interfere with the promise. The word till, ( ἄχρις οὗ,) signifies so long as the seed is expected: and hence it follows, that it must have been intended to occupy not the highest, but a subordinate rank. It was given in order to rouse men to the expectation of Christ. But was it necessary that it should last only until the coming of Christ? For if so, it follows that it is now abolished. The whole of that administration, I reply, was temporal, and was given for the purpose of preserving among the ancient people an attachment to the faith of Christ. And yet I do not admit that, by the coming of Christ, the whole law was abolished. The apostle did not intend this, but merely that the mode of administration, which for a time had been introduced, must receive its accomplishment in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the promise. (60) But on this subject we shall have occasion to speak more fully afterwards.
Ordained by angels. The circumstance, that it was delivered through angels, tends to the commendation of the law. This is declared by Stephen (Act 7:53) also, who says, that they had “received the law, ( εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων,) into the dispositions of angels.” The interpretation given by some, that Moses and Aaron, and the priests, are the angels here meant, is more ingenious than solid. Nor is it wonderful that angels, by whom God bestows on us some of the smallest of his blessings, should have been intrusted also with this office of attending as witnesses at the promulgation of the law.
In the hand of a Mediator Hand usually signifies ministration; but as angels were ministers in giving the law, I consider “the hand of the Mediator” to denote the highest rank of service. The Mediator was at the head of the embassy, and angels were united with him as his companions. Some apply this expression to Moses, as marking a comparison between Moses and Christ; but I agree rather with the ancient expositors, who apply it to Christ himself. (61) This view, it will be found, agrees better with the context, though I differ from the ancients likewise as to the meaning of the word. Mediator does not, as they imagine, signify here one who makes reconciliation, which it does in these words,
“
There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1Ti 2:5,)
—
but an ambassador employed in promulgating a law.
We are thus to understand, that, since the beginning of the world, God has held no intercourse with men, but through the agency of his eternal Wisdom or Son. Hence Peter says, that the holy prophets spake by the “Spirit of Christ,” (1Pe 1:11,) and Paul makes him the leader of the people in the wilderness. (1Co 10:4.) And certainly the Angel who appeared to Moses, (Exo 3:2,) can be no other person; for he claims to himself the peculiar and essential name of God, which is never applied to creatures. As he is the Mediator of reconciliation, by whom we are accepted of God, — the Mediator of intercession, who opens up for us a way to “call on the Father,” (1Pe 1:17,) — so he has always been the Mediator of all doctrine, because by him God has always revealed himself to men. And this he intended to state expressly, for the purpose of informing the Galatians, that he who is the foundation of the covenant of grace, held also the highest rank in the giving of the law.
(60) “ Qui est le parfait accomplissement de la promesse.” “Who is the perfect accomplishment of the promise.”
(61) “Though some learned men have been of opinion that the mediator here mentioned is the Son of God, yet I think no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to its denoting Moses. Strictly speaking, Aaron, or rather the priesthood, was the mediator of the old covenant. It answers to the Great High-Priest, ( ἀρχιερεύς,) Mediator, ( μεσίτης,) and Surety, ( ἔγγυος,) of the new covenant. But the reference seems here to the giving of the law: that was by Moses. ‘The law was given by Moses.’ (Joh 1:17.) God speaks to Moses, and Moses speaks to the people; and this arrangement was entered into by the express request of the people themselves. Moses himself says, ‘I stood between the Lord and you at that time. (Deu 5:5.) Philo calls Moses μεσίτης.” — Brown.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
Gal. 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?As it is of no avail for justification, is it either useless or contrary to the covenant of God? It was added because of transgressions.To bring out into clearer view the transgressions of the law; to make men more fully conscious of their sins, by being perceived as transgressions of the law, and so make them long for the promised Saviour. It was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.As instrumental enactors of the law. In the giving of the law the angels were representatives of God; Moses, as mediator, represented the people.
Gal. 3:20. Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.The very idea of mediation supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two partiesGod on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The Giver is everything, the recipient nothing (Lightfoot).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gal. 3:19-20
The Inferiority of the Law.
I. It did not justify but condemn the sinner by revealing his sin.It was added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19). Law has no remedial efficacy. It reveals and emphasises the fact of sin. It has no terror while it is obeyed. When it is violated then it thunders, and with pitiless severity terrifies the conscience and inflicts unsparing punishment. There is no strain of mercy in its voice, or in the inflexibility of its methods. It surrenders the condemned to an anguish from which it offers no means of escape. It is said that, after the murder of Darnley, some of the wretches who were concerned in it were found wandering about the streets of Edinburgh crying penitently and lamentably for vengeance on those who had caused them to shed innocent blood.
II. It was temporary in its operation.Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made (Gal. 3:19). The work of the law was preparatory and educative. Centuries rolled away and the promised Seed was long in coming, and it seemed as if the world must remain for ever under the tutelage of the law. All the time the law was doing its work. God was long in fulfilling His promise because man was so slow to learn. When Christ, the promised Seed, appeared, the law was superseded. Its work was done. The preparatory gave place to the permanent; the reign of law was displaced by the reign of grace. The claims of the law were discharged once for all.
III. Its revelation was through intermediaries.It was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator (Gal. 3:19). In the Jewish estimation the administration of the law by angels enhanced its splendour, and the pomp and ceremony with which Moses made known the will and character of Jehovah added to the impressiveness and superiority of the law. In the Christian view these very methods were evidences of defect and inferiority. The revelations of God by the law were veiled and intermediate; the revelation by grace is direct and immediate. Under the law God was a distant and obscured personality, and the people unfit to enter His sacred presence; by the gospel God is brought near to man, and permitted to bask in the radiance of His revealed glory, without the intervention of a human mediator. The law, with its elaborate ceremonial and multiplied exactions, is a barrier between the soul and God.
IV. It was contingent, not absolute, in its primal terms.Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one (Gal. 3:20). Where a mediator is necessary unity is wantingnot simply in a numerical but in a moral sense, as matter of feeling and of aim. There are separate interests, discordant views, to be consulted. This was true of Mosaism. It was not the absolute religion. The theocratic legislation of the Pentateuch is lacking in the unity and consistency of a perfect revelation. Its disclosures of God were refracted in a manifest degree by the atmosphere through which they passed. In the promise God spoke immediately and for Himself. The man of Abrahams faith sees God in His unity. The legalist gets his religion at second-hand, mixed with undivine elements. He projects on the divine image confusing shadows of human imperfection (Findlay).
Lessons.
1. The law is powerless to remove the sin it exposes.
2. The law had the defect of all preparatory dispensations.
3. The law imposes conditions it does not help to fulfil.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Gal. 3:19-20. The Law is for Transgressors.
I. We are taught to examine and search our hearts by the law of God.
1. When any sin is forbidden in any commandment of the law, under it all sins of the same kind are forbidden, all causes of them and all occasions.
2. A commandment negative includes the affirmative, and binds us not only to abstain from evil, but also to do the contrary good.
3. Every commandment must be understood with a curse annexed to it, though the curse be not expressed.
4. We must especially examine ourselves by the first and last commandments. The first forbids the first motions of our hearts against God, and the last forbids the first motions of our hearts against our neighbour.
II. The law of God to be reverenced.
1. Because it was ordained or delivered by angels.
2. We are to fear to break the least commandment, because the angels observe the keepers and breakers of it, and are ready to witness against them that offend.
3. If thou offend and break the law, repent with speed, for that is the desired joy of angels.
4. If thou sin and repent not, look for shame and confusion before God and His angels.
III. God, the Author and Source of law, is one.
1. He is unchangeable.
2. His unchangeableness the foundation of our comfort.
3. We should be unchangeable in faith, hope, love, good counsels, honest promises, and in the maintenance of true religion.Perkins.
Gal. 3:19. The Use of the Law.
I. It is a standard to measure our defects.
II. It is a sword to pierce our conscience.
III. It is a seal to certify that we are in the way of grace.Tholuck.
No Trust in Legal Prescriptions.St. Paul, with the sledge-hammer force of his direct and impassioned dialectics, shattered all possibility of trusting in legal prescriptions, and demonstrated that the law was no longer obligatory on Gentiles. He had shown that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was to the enlightened conscience a matter of indifference, that circumcision was nothing better than a physical mutilation, that ceremonialism was a yoke with which the free, converted Gentile had nothing to do, that we are saved by faith and not by works, that the law was a dispensation of wrath and menace introduced for the sake of transgressions, that so far from being, as all the Rabbis asserted, the one thing on account of which the universe had been created, the Mosaic code only possessed a transitory, subordinate, and intermediate character, coming in, as it were in a secondary way, between the promise to Abraham and the fulfilment of that promise in the gospel of Christ.Dean Farrar.
The Use of the Law under the Gospel.
I. The law never was intended to supersede the gospel as a means of life.
II. The most perfect edition of the gospel, so far from having abolished the least tittle of the moral law, has established it.
III. The use of the law.
1. To constitute probation.
2. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
3. The law serves to give beauty and symmetry to the hidden man of the heart.
4. To vindicate the conduct of our Judge in dooming the impenitent to eternal death.
Lessons.
1. Since the law as a covenant has been superseded by a covenant better adapted to our guilty and helpless circumstances, let us make a proper use of the mercy, acquaint ourselves with its demands, and abound in the holiness it enjoins.
2. Mark those who set aside the law, shun their company, and pray for their repentance.Iota.
Gal. 3:20. The Unity of God and His Purpose regarding Man.
1. The covenant with Adam in his innocency was immediate, no mediator intervening to make them one; there was no disagreement betwixt them because of sin.
2. No man can attain heaven, or reap any advantage, except he be perfectly holy. God made no covenant of works with men on Mount Sinai, nor could they have reaped benefit from such a covenant as they were a sinful people, standing in need of a midsman betwixt God and them.
3. The Lord in all His dispensations is always one, and like to Himself without shadow of turning. If any plead a right to heaven by the merit of their works, God will abate nothing of what He did once prescribe and require of man in the covenant of works.Fergusson.
An Effectual Mediator.Edward III., after defeating Philip of France at Crey, laid siege to Calais, which, after an obstinate resistance of a year, was taken. He offered to spare the lives of the inhabitants on condition that six of their principal citizens should be delivered up to him, with halters round their necks, to be immediately executed. When these terms were announced the rulers of the town came together, and the question was proposed, Who will offer himself as an atonement for the city? Who will imitate Christ who gave Himself for the salvation of men? The number was soon made up. On reaching the English camp they were received by the soldiers of Edward with every mark of commiseration. They appeared before the king. Are these the principal inhabitants of Calais? he inquired sternly. Of France, my lord, they replied. Lead them to execution. At this moment the queen arrived. She was informed of the punishment about to be inflicted on the six victims. She hastened to the king and pleaded for their pardon. At first he sternly refused, but her earnestness conquered, and the king yielded. When we submit our hearts as captives to the Father, and feel that we are condemned and lost, we have an effectual Mediator who stays the hand of justice.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
2.
Superiority of the Gospel to the Law seen in that the law was a temporary arrangement. Gal. 3:19-29
TEXT 3:19, 20
(19) What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.
PARAPHRASE 3:19, 20
19 But if the inheritance was not by the law, but by the promise as a free gift, why was the law added after the promise? It was added on account of restraining transgressions; and was to continue till the seed should come to whom it was promised, that all nations should be blessed in him; being spoken by angels who put it in the hand of Moses, as a mediator between God and the people.
20 The giving of the law by a mediator, shewed the Israelites that God was displeased with them; because a mediator is not employed between parties who are in friendship: But God is in friendship only with the righteous.
COMMENT 3:19
What then is the law
1.
If it does not annul the promise and if it can not confer salvation, why did God send it?
a.
Paul states it was added because of transgression.
b.
Further, it was only temporary.
c.
It was ordained at the hands of angels through a mediator. d. The law served a very important purpose as a tutor. Gal. 3:24
2.
Luther answers like this:
a.
That there might be a people of God rigidly controlled out of which could come Jesus Christ.
b.
That a people burdened by many laws might sigh and long for a redeemer.
c.
The ceremonies foreshadowed Christ.
d.
Therefore, the law was meant to confirm the promise until the fulness of time should come.
It was added because of transgressions
1.
It was added to show mans sinfulness and his need of the mercy of God.
2.
Men would know sin only in a general way without law.
3.
For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom. 5:13
4.
I had not known sin, except through the law. Rom. 7:7
5.
For through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20
till the seed should come
1.
We have at least a two-fold purpose of the law.
a.
One is civil.
1)
Law was given to restrain sin.
2)
Law seeks to preserve the good.
b.
The other is spiritual.
1)
The law led us to graceto Jesus.
2.
This gives us the limitation.
a.
When God said forever He meant it to be until He sent Christ.
1)
It shall be a statute for ever throughout their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. Exo. 27:21
2)
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to Jehovah: (passover) throughout your generations, ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever. Exo. 12:14
to whom the promise hath been made
1.
Was the promise made to Jesus? No.
2.
To whom refers to the descendants of Abraham.
it was ordained through angels
1.
What is it?
a.
The promise? No.
b.
The law. Yes.
c.
It was not given by divine lips as to Abraham directly.
d.
It was given by angels.
1)
He shined forth from mount Paran and he came from the ten thousand of holy ones: at his right hand was a fiery law for them. Deu. 33:2
2)
For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward. Heb. 2:2
3)
The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands upon thousands: The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the sanctuary. Psa. 68:17
4)
The law as it was ordained by angels. Act. 7:53
e.
This, of course, is not as great as swearing by Himself.
1)
It was given in a different way in a different manner.
2)
There was no mediator between God and Abraham.
f.
Note the limitation of the mediator.
1)
Moses was only a mediator between God and Israel, not between God and Spiritual Israel.
2)
Thus a promise to include everyone could not be altered by a covenant such as the one Moses gave.
2.
Ordained simply means that angels mediated it and it was no less divine. Cf. Heb. 2:2, Act. 7:38; Act. 7:53
by the hand of the mediator
1.
Moses was the mediator.
I stood between Jehovah and you at that time, to show you the word of Jehovah: for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount. Deu. 5:5
2.
There was no mediator between Abraham and God: He acted singularly.
COMMENT 3:20
now a mediator is not a mediator of one
1.
The Catholic Bible says, Now there is no intermediary where there is only one.
2.
This verse has many ideas: first, what is a mediator?
a.
A mediator signifies a middle person: There must necessarily be two parties.
1)
He acts in reference to both.
2)
He is supposed to have the interests of both equally at heart.
b.
Though Moses was a mediator between God and its one seed which is to come;
1)
He was the mediator of one part of Abrahams seed, but not the mediator of the other seed.
2)
The mediator of the Gentiles is Christ.
God is one
1.
God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Rom. 3:30
a.
You cant be a mediator of God onlyfor God is one.
b.
God does not offend any one, therefore He needs no mediator.
2.
Hear O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Deu. 6:4
a.
The Hebrew word for one is Ethod.
1)
It means to unite.
2)
It means a compound unity.
b.
The Scriptures offer the following illustrations:
1)
One daycombining light and dark. Gen. 1:5
2)
One fleshmade two. Gen. 2:2-24
3)
One tribeone of 12. Gen. 49:16
4)
One of a cluster. Num. 13:23
c.
It is seen also in the use of language.
1)
Motto of U.S. E Pluribus Unum a unity of manyone composed of many.
STUDY QUESTIONS 3:19, 20
348.
Are you able to answer Pauls question?
349.
Why was the law added?
350.
If it cant offer salvation and did not change the promise, then why was it given?
351.
To what was it added?
352.
How long was the law to last?
353.
Did not God say that the Jews were to keep the law forever?
354.
Who is referred to by the expression To whom the promise hath been made?
355.
Was the promise ordained?
356.
What does it refer to?
357.
How was it by angels?
358.
Were angels involved in the giving of the promise?
359.
Define mediator.
360.
Why did God give the law by a mediator?
361.
Does this indicate anything, the fact that the law was given by a mediator, while the promise was not?
362.
How many parties are involved when a mediator is used?
363.
Was the mediator of Moses limited in his scope?
364.
Why does he say God is one in this connection?
365.
Is it possible for God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be one?
366.
Do we use the word one to include many?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(19) Wherefore then serveth the law?Literally, What then is the Law? What is its object or function? If it did not affect the promise, what did it do? The Apostle proceeds to answer this question.
It was added.It was not a part of the original scheme, but came in as a sort of marginal addition. It was, as it were, a parenthesis in the design of Providence. The direct line of Gods dealings with man ran through the promise and its fulfilment. The Law came in by the way.
Because of transgressions.It has been usual to give to this one of two opposite interpretations, to make it mean (1) to check or put down transgressions; (2) to multiply and increase transgressions, as in Rom. 5:20. The expression seems wide enough to cover both ideas. The Law was given because of transgressions: i.e., it had its object in transgressions. Its original purpose was to make them known, and by imposing a penalty to check them; its real effect was to provoke and enhance them. The expression because of transgressions leaves it ambiguous which of these points is meant, or rather, it includes them all.
Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.By the seed is meant, as above, in Gal. 3:16, Christ, the Messiah. The promise is said to have been made to Him in whom it is fulfilled, just as, in Gal. 3:14, Christians are said to receive the promisei.e., the fulfilment of the promise of the Spirit.
Ordained by angels.The idea of angels having had a share in the giving of the Law appears in Deu. 33:2 : The Lord came from Sinai . . . He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints. For saints the LXX. substitutes, in the next verse, angels. Similar allusions are found at the end of St. Stephens speech (Act. 7:53): Who have received the law by the disposition (as ordinances) of angels, and have not kept it; and in Heb. 2:2 : If the word spoken by (through) angels was stedfast. In this last instance, as in the present passage, the ministration of angels employed in it is quoted as showing the inferiority of the Law to the Gospel. In St. Stephens speech and in Josephus (Ant. xv. 5, 3) the same ministration is appealed to as enhancing the dignity of the Law. The different point of view is natural enough, according as the subject is regarded from the side of man or from the side of God.
In the hand of a mediator.Through the instrumentality of a third person, distinct from the contracting partiesi.e., in this case, Moses. The term mediator was commonly applied to Moses in the Rabbinical writings, and appears to be hinted at in Heb. 8:6, where our Lord is spoken of as a mediator of a better covenant. Many of the fathers, following Origen, took the mediator here to be Christ, and were thus thrown out in their interpretation of the whole passage.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(19, 20) If such was not the function of the Lawif it had no power to modify the promisewhat was its true function? It was a sort of measure of police. Its object was to deal with transgressions. It was also a temporary measure, of force only until it should be superseded by the coming of the Messiah. Unlike the promise, too, it was a contract. It was given by a mediatorthat is, a person acting between two parties. Two parties were involved, with rigid conditions binding them both. On the other hand, the promise was given unconditionally by the sole act of God.
In stating the true function of the Law, the Apostle brings out its inferiority to the promise in four respects. (1) It dealt with sins, not with holiness; (2) it was temporary and transitory; (3) it was given, not directly, but indirectly, through the double mediation of the angels and of Moses; (4) it was conditional, and not like the promise, unconditional. It depended upon the fallible action of man, and not only upon the infallible word of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Real purpose of the law namely, to advance us to Christ and blessedness, Gal 3:19-29.
If the Abrahamic promise is thus prior and superior to the Mosaic law what are the position, value, and purpose of the law? It met, exposed, and punished transgression during the interim between the giving of the promise and the coming of Messiah. The Galatians must, therefore, understand that the Mosaic legislation was but a temporary and subordinate expedient. To leave the older Abrahamic-Messianic promise, and fall back to law, is, therefore, an apostasy.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
19. Because of transgressions ”How is this to be interpreted? Is it to check transgression? or is it rather to create transgression? for ‘where no law is, there is no transgression.’ Rom 4:15. Thus law reveals, (Rom 3:20,) provokes, (Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13,) multiplies, (Rom 5:20,) sin or transgression.” Lightfoot. Undoubtedly all these meanings; for in all, the law fails to give life to those who do not keep it.
The Seed The Messiah. Note, Gal 3:16.
To whom the promise was made The promise was addressed to Abraham, and made to him subordinately; but it was made to the Seed, the Redeemer, in the divine purpose, and supremely.
Ordained by angels See note on Act 7:53.
Mediator Moses.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘What then is the Law? It was added because of transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made, ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one.’
What was then the nature of the Law? It was a temporary measure, put in place to control sin until the promised Seed should come, who would bring God’s promised blessing to the world. Indeed it must be seen as inferior because intermediaries were involved. The Law came through angels (this is what the Judaisers taught), to Moses and the people, whereas Abraham received his promise directly from the one God. So the latter is a pure, irrevocable promise from God, while the former is a transaction carried out through intermediaries, which demonstrates its inferiority.
‘What then is the Law?’ That is, what is its nature and purpose?
‘It was added because of transgressions.’ There were of course customs and traditions that determined the behaviour of members of the tribe in the days of the patriarchs. But God had decided that because of man’s weakness and failure, and because of his disobedience and rebellion, and in order that He and they might have a standard by which men could be judged, and in order to give guidance to judges in that judgment, this had to be put into legal form as a direct command from God. This then removed any argument and gave the laws absolute authority.
For whereas in a family tribal situation (as in a family) the patriarch represented absolute authority, and could be appealed to personally, and could give his guidance personally, in a nation composed of a number of tribes (which also included a large number of foreign components – Exo 12:38) it was different. This absolute authority had to be established by other means. Thus the Law was given, laying out and declaring how men should behave, and providing a standard against which they could be judged, so as to control transgression and reveal it for what it was.
So the Law had a number of effects because of what men were, and ‘because of transgressions’ can be seen from these different aspects.
Firstly it can be seen as given to restrain transgressions. That is one main purpose of Law. All law has a restraining effect, seeking to persuade men not to sin. That is also indeed one function of a childminder (Gal 3:23-25). So God wanted the Law to control men’s behaviour.
Secondly it can be seen as given in order to reveal transgressions. Here the thought is that it makes clear to all that something is wrong and sinful. This was certainly one of Paul’s views of it. It results in man being guilty before God (compareRom 3:20; Rom 4:15; Rom 5:13; Rom 7:7).
Thirdly it can sadly result in provoking transgressions. This was another of Paul’s views of it, closely allied with the previous one (Rom 7:5; Rom 7:8). It was not given in order to provoke men to disobedience, but because of their perverse nature, there is nothing that more provokes men to disobey, than the injunction ‘you shall not –’. For they ask themselves, ‘why shouldn’t I?’ Thus it again reveals their sinfulness in a different way. It makes them ‘exceeding sinful’ (Rom 7:13) and thus reveals to them how needy they were
But there is also one thing more that the Law does. It results in men being cursed by God. For as men transgressed that Law they became liable to the curse of God (Deu 27:26 compare Jer 11:3). And the Law then also provided ways by which the curse could be diverted, by sacrifices, by washings, by observance of feasts and feast days and so on. But these could only be temporary. They could only delay sentence. For they could not take away sins (Rom 3:25).
‘Until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.’ But these stipulations only applied until the One Who was promised came, the One Who would bear the curse on Himself (Gal 3:13). They were temporary until a greater Authority arrived. One Who could say, ‘But I say to you’ (Mat 5:22; Mat 5:28; Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39; Mat 5:44) and introduce a better Torah (‘Instruction’), a better Law. Then they would cease to apply. For now those who believed in Him would no longer be guilty before God. And they would have an Example to follow. And what was more they would have One Who lived within them. They would not longer need the Law.
‘Ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator.’ The Jews believed that the Law was mediated through angels (Heb 2:2; Act 7:53). While God Himself declared the covenant which included the ten commandments (Exo 20:1-17), the whole Law was seen as mediated through angels. These were seen as having acted as the mediator between God and men. Now, says Paul, where there is a mediator a covenant is transacted by three parties, the two participants and the mediator. But the promise to Abraham was not mediated in this way, nor did he have any direct part in it. It came directly from God. Thus it was more immediate.
‘Now a mediator is not of one, but God is One.’ Where there is a mediator to a covenant more than one party must be involved. That is why mediation takes place. Thus there are three parties connected with such a covenant, any one of whom may seek to introduce changes. And this indeed was what the Rabbis did (although they did not see it in that way) as they expounded the Law and laid down their differing determinations of its meaning. They were acting as mediators. That was true also of the covenant of Sinai and the giving of the Law. They were mediated through angels. But in the case of the promises to Abraham there was no mediator. It was like a will, or an irrevocable settlement. God said, and it was done. Only God was involved, and God is One. So that covenant with Abraham was a purely divine transaction, totally unalterable and irrevocable, and thus far superior to any other. For God is the unchanging God (Mal 3:6), the One in Whom is no variableness, nor shadow resulting from His moving His position (Jas 1:17). He does not alter in what He has promised.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
What Then Was the Purpose of the Law? ( Gal 3:19-24 ).
He now raises the question as to what the purpose of the Law is.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Illustration of the House Attendant – Paul then explains how the Law is to be interpreted in light of the New Covenant that we have in Christ Jesus. He first says that the Law was temporary and intended to lead us to Christ by revealing man’s sinful nature (Gal 3:19-29). He takes an illustration from the Greek culture in order to make his explanation clear. In Paul’s day it was the custom of a house attendant to take the boys of nobility to school and turn them over to the school teacher. In the same way, the Law simply brought us to Christ, and is now no longer needed. The Law revealed man’s sinful nature in that no man living under the Law was able to follow it perfectly. Thus, it made us conscious of our sinfulness and of our need for forgiveness.
Gal 3:19 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.
Gal 3:19
Rom 3:20, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
Rom 5:20, “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:”
It is by the giving of the Law that man’s offenses were manifested so that he could understand his sinful nature and his need of a Redeemer.
Gal 3:19 “and it was ordained by angels” Comments – John Gill refers to ancient Jewish writings in interpreting the phrase “and it was ordained by angels,” saying t he Targum says that “the Lord appeared on Mount Sinai gloriously, ‘with companies,’ or ‘troops of angels,’ to give the law to his people.” He cites the Targum in 1Ch 29:11. [91]
[91] John Gill, Galatians, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Galatians 3:19.
1Ch 29:11, “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.”
This statement finds support in Deu 33:2 and Psa 68:17 when it refers to angels who accompanied the Lord on Mt. Sinai.
Deu 33:2, “And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.”
Psa 68:17, “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.”
Stephen also tells us that Moses received the Law by the hands of angels.
Act 7:53, “Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
The writer of Hebrews alludes to this event in which angels spoke to Moses in the giving of the Law.
Heb 2:2, “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;”
Gal 3:19 “in the hand of a mediator” Word Study on “in the hand of” Some translators render the phrase (in the hand of) to mean, “under the control of” ( YLT). Others interpret it to read, “by” ( ASV, NET) or “through the hand of” ( RSV) being the instrumental case.
ASV, “by the hand of a mediator”
NET, “by an intermediary”
RSV, “through an intermediary”
YLT, “in the hand of a mediator”
Comments Some scholars refer to Moses as the mediator that Paul mentions in Gal 3:19. Moses said that he “stood between the Lord and you at that time.” (Deu 5:5; Deu 5:23-27)
Deu 5:5, “( I stood between the LORD and you at that time , to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying,”
Gal 3:22 Comments – In other words, mankind is a fallen race. See Rom 3:11-19; Rom 3:23; Rom 11:32 for parallel passages regarding man’s depravity.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:23
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:24
Comments – Gal 3:24 tells us that the Law was our “schoolmaster” ( KJV), but this is a poor translation of the word . This word actually refers to the ancient custom of a house attendant who took the boys of nobility to school and turned them over to the school teacher. This custodian and disciplinarian took the child when he was released from his mother and nanny and watched over him, and brought him to his teacher for his education until he was old enough to care for himself. [92] In the same way, the Law simply brought us to Christ, and is now no longer needed.
[92] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 41, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 3.0b [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2004), notes on Galatians 3:24.
F. F. Bruce says, “The Law made us conscious of our sinfulness and of our need for forgiveness.” [93] The Law revealed man’s sinful nature in that no man living under the Law was able to follow it perfectly. We now know that the system of Temple worship and sacrificing symbolized Christ’s redemptive work. Thus, the Law pointed us to Christ Jesus, as the paidagogos led the child to his instructor or master.
[93] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 86.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Law: Explaining the Law in Light of the New Covenant In 2 Corinthians 3:19 to 2Co 4:7 Paul explains the Law in light of the new covenant in Christ Jesus. He does this by using two illustrations from their culture, that of the house keeper attending the son, and that of the son as an heir.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Illustration of the House Attendant Gal 3:19-29
2. Illustration of the Son as an Heir Gal 4:1-7
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Proofs for the Liberty of a Christian from the Nature and Meaning of the Law.
The secondary office of the Law:
v. 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.
v. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
v. 21. Is the Law, the n, against the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.
v. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. The apostle here meets an objection which the opponents might make. If the Law can be of no assistance in the matter of justification, what is its purpose? He shows that the fact of the Law’s being without value so far as salvation is concerned by no means renders it useless. it was added on account of the transgressions until the Seed should come to whom the promise had been made, being ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. The Law was added to the communications of God to men, as a companion or servant of the evangelical promises, Rom 5:20. On account of the transgressions it was set forth in addition to the Gospel-promise, by the side of the message of salvation. As the children of Israel grew in numbers, they gradually lost sight of the great prophecy of their spiritual inheritance; they became guilty of various transgressions of the will of God; they were in danger of losing the treasure which had been entrusted to them. And so God gave them the Law to show them their transgressions, to keep alive in them the consciousness of sin, to make them feel the need of a Savior at all times. Such is the supplementary, the ancillary character of the Law; it is to serve for the purpose of working knowledge of sin and of the wrath of God on account of sin This object incidentally gives to the Law a temporary character; it was to serve only until Christ, the promised Seed, came. The ministry of condemnation was to be done away with, 2Co 3:11, for Christ is the end of the Law to them that believe. As soon as Christ occupies the heart of a person by faith, the Law as such has lost its power; it can no longer hurl maledictions and condemnations upon us, and its demands become mere sign-posts to show the way to the service of sanctification. The subsidiary character of the Law is finally shown by the manner of its origin, since it was set forth through angels by the hand of a mediator. The angels of the Lord were His servants on Sinai, in proclaiming the Law; their voice sounded forth in the sound of the trumpet, their power was seen in the quaking of the mountain and in the flames of fire. By means of their service the Lord placed the words of the Law into the hands of Moses to deliver them to the people.
In connection with this plain statement Paul now remarks: But the mediator is not of one: the very term excludes his being the mediator of a single party; but God is one. These two statements may be regarded as the first two members of a logical conclusion, the third member then being: A mediator does not mediate between God. The meaning of the apostle then would be: By giving the Law through the mediator, Moses, the Lord wanted to indicate plainly that the Law should and could have nothing to do with the subject under discussion, the justification of poor sinners. But an even simpler explanation is the following: At the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai God made use of a mediator, Noses. But a mediator, by virtue of his position, is the representative of both parties of a covenant. These parties at Mount Sinai were God and the children of Israel. By using Moses as mediator, God indicated that He was entering upon a covenant with the Israelites under certain conditions. God promised them eternal life, but only on condition of their fulfilling His Law in all its particulars. But it is different with the promise which the Lord gave to Abraham, vv. 16 and 19. God there did not make use of a mediator, but spoke to Abraham in person, face to face. He alone was active in giving His free promise of grace, with His testament of mercy, given absolutely without condition; He acted as one, in the freedom of His divine favor.
A second objection: Is the Law, then, against the promises of God? By no means. People might object that, since there is such a great difference between the character of the two communications of the Lord to men, the one nullifies the other. But that does not follow. God does not contradict Himself. For if a law were given which could have given life, then truly were righteousness out of the Law. If that were the character, the nature, of the Law, not only to demand righteousness, but also to transmit righteousness, if it were able to give spiritual life to such as are in spiritual death, then the order of salvation would indeed have been changed, then both doctrines, the Law and the Gospel, would be advancing the claim of bringing salvation, then we could be justified before God by means of the Law. But there are no powers of regeneration in the Law, it cannot work the new, spiritual life.
The Law thus being excluded as a means of grace, only one thing remains: Rather has the Scripture shut up all under sin, in order that the promise might be given by faith in Jesus Christ to them that believe. What Paul writes, Rom 3:22-23, that there is no difference, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, is amply substantiated in many passages of God’s Word, Psa 14:3; Psa 143:2. All men without exception are prisoners under sentence, condemned to pay the penalty of sin; not one there is that can deny his guilt. And since they are all thus in the same condemnation by the sentence and the power of the Law, therefore the purpose of the Law to pave the way for the action of the Gospel may now be realized. Works and merits have been discarded, the Law as a means of grace can no longer be considered: the Gospel-promise is given by faith in Christ to them that believe. Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling! The promise is given, faith is given; and faith accepts the promise and thus has forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gal 3:19. In answer to the objection, To what then serveth the law? the Apostle shews that the law was not contrary to the promise; but since all men were guilty of transgression, Gal 3:22 the law was added, to shew the Israelites the fruit and inevitable consequence of their sin, and thereby the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ. But as soon as men had received Christ, they had attained the end of the law of Moses, and therefore should be no longer under it. This is a further argument against circumcision, Gal 3:19-25.
It was added because of transgression, “It was added after the promise to Abraham was made.” As the law given by Moses neither did nor could disannul the covenant made with Abraham, to which the Jews undoubtedly had a claim, the design of that law must therefore have been to engage those of his descendants who came under it, to see their need of that covenant, and more effectually to recommend the promise to them. And as the writing of the book of Genesis gave them a further account of it than tradition had preserved, the law might be said to be added to that account, because of transgressions, as their transgressions, not only of the ceremonial, but also of the moral precepts, would appear more exceedingly sinful and dangerous, in proportion to the perspicuity of these precepts, and the awful solemnity with which they were delivered.That the law was given by the ministration of angels, is apparent from many passages of scripture; (comp. Psa 68:17. Act 7:53 and Heb 2:2.) though the Logos, or eternal Son of God, did undoubtedly preside among them, and it was in his name that the proclamation was made by the angels, as his heralds and attendants. The mediator here meant was Moses, who was particularly authorized by the Jewish people, as well as constituted by God, to mediate in the affair of receiving the law, which he transacted once for all. See Deu 5:5. Lev 26:46 where it is said, that the law was made between God and the children of Israel, by the hand of Moses.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 3:19 . [140] After Paul has shown in Gal 3:15-18 that the law does not abolish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might very naturally be met by the inquiry, “According to this view, then, what sort of end is left to be served by the law in connection with the history of salvation?” Hence he himself raises this question and answers it.
] sc . : how does it stand therefore (if it is the case that the law does not abolish the covenant of promise) with the law? A general question, in which, to judge from the answer that follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which God gave the law. On the neuter , with a nominative following, comp. 1Co 3:5 (in the correct reading): ; and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg . p. 501 E; Bernhardy, p. 336 f. Following J. Cappellus, Schott (also Matthies, though undecidedly, Jatho and Wieseler) takes for ; very unnecessarily, however, and in opposition to the constant use of the so frequently recurring in Paul’s writings (Rom 3:1 ; Rom 4:1 , et al .; comp. Gal 4:15 ).
] for the sake of transgressions it was added; that is, in order that the transgressions of the law might be brought out as real, it was, after the covenant of promise was already in existence, superadded to the latter ( , Rom 5:20 ). The law namely, because it gives occasion to the potency of sin in man to bring about in him all evil desire (Rom 7:5 ; Rom 7:8 ), and nevertheless is too weak as a counter-power to oppose this sinful development (Rom 8:3 ), is the (1Co 15:56 ; and see Rom 7:7 ff.); but sin which, although existing since Adam (Rom 5:13 ), is yet increased by that provocation of the law has only come to assume the definite character of in virtue of the existence of the law and its relation thereto (Rom 4:15 ). The same purpose of the law is expressed in Rom 5:20 , but without the stricter definition of sin as . Accordingly, . is not (with Wetstein) to be rationalized to this effect: “Lex sine dubio eo consilio lata est, ut servaretur, ; vitio tamen hominum evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur.” This is in itself correct (comp. Rom 7:12 ), but is irrelevant here, where the point in question is the position of the law in connection with the divine plan of salvation, the final aim of which is redemption. The real idea of the apostle is, that the emergence of sins namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom 4:15 ), moral form of transgressions which the law brought about, was designed by God (who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave the law, and designed in fact as a mediate end in reference to the future redemption; for the evil was to become truly great, that it might nevertheless be outdone by grace (Rom 5:20 ). The result, which the law, according to experience, has on the whole effected, and by which it has proved itself the (comp. also 2Co 3:6 ), could not be otherwise than the aim of God. Comp. Ritschl, p. 74 f.; Baur, neutest. Theol . p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Matthias (who, however, assumes the intentional appearance of an ambiguity), Stlting, and others; also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl . p. 75; Lechler, apost. Zeit . p. 110. Luther (1519) strikingly remarks: “Ut remissio propter salutem, ita praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgressionem.” Observe, further, the article before ., which summarily comprehends, as having really that character, the transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the law; comp. Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul, u. Petr . p. 297. Others [141] consider that by . the recognition of sins is expressed as the aim of the law. So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis, Windischmann, and others; also Winer (“ut manifestam redderet atque ita argueret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi contrahebant, culpam”). But (1) this idea could not have been expressed by the mere . ; for although is not always exclusively used in its original sense, for the sake of, in favour of , but may also be taken simply as on account of , [142] still, in order to be intelligible, Paul must have written as signifying: in order to bring sins to recognition as transgressions . And (2) the point of the recognition of sin was entirely foreign to this passage; for in . Paul desires to call attention to the fact that the law, according to the divine plan, was intended to produce exactly the objective, actual (not merely the subjective) opposite of the (comp. Gal 3:21-22 ). On account of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, ad coercendas transgressiones , is wholly to be rejected, because opposed to the context. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae, Semler, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmller, Paulus, Rckert, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (“in order to punish them more strictly ”); also Messner, Lehre d. Ap . p. 222, and Hauck, comp. Buhl; several, such as Grotius and Rckert, think that the inclination to Egyptian idolatry is chiefly referred to. This view is decidedly disposed of by the expression , since as such could only come into existence with the law (Rom 4:15 ); previously there were sins, but no transgressions, a view with which Rom 5:14 does not conflict, because the matter in question there is the transgression of a quite definite, positive command of God. The two last interpretations are combined by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, following older expositors (comp. also Matthies), a course inconsistent with hermeneutical principles in general, and here in fact involving an amalgamation of two erroneous views .
] it was added , is not inconsistent with what was said in Gal 3:15 , , because in the latter general proposition under third persons are thought of. The law, moreover, was not given as (see on Gal 3:15 ), but as another institution, which, far from being a novella to the , was only to be a temporary intermediate measure in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final fulfilment of the promise. See the sequel, and comp. Rom 5:20 ; Rom 10:4 .
. . . ] terminus ad quem of the merely provisional duration of this added institute. But these words are neither to be connected, in disregard of their position, with (Hofmann), nor to be placed in a parenthesis; for the construction is not interrupted. As to , usque dum venerit , comp. on Rom 11:25 . According to the general usage of the N.T. (Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 198), the subjunctive , and not the optative (Matthiae, p. 1158), is used. Paul has not put , because there was no idea in his mind of any circumstances which could have hindered the event. See Stallbaum, ad Phaed . p. 62 C; Hermann, de part . , p. 110 ff.; Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 291 ff. Comp. on 1Co 11:26 .
.] that is, Christ , whose advent, according to Gal 3:16 , necessarily brought with it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative , however, does not stand for (Winer, Usteri), but just as in Gal 3:16 : to whom the promise was made .
] not promiserat (Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt, Hofmann), comp. Rom 4:21 , Heb 12:26 ; but promissio facta est ( 2Ma 4:27 ), because thus it is not requisite to supply , and the expression corresponds very naturally with in Gal 3:16 . Hence also it is superfluous to supply (Ewald).
. .] the mode in which , or the form of this act: having been ordained through angels , etc. On , comp. Hesiod, . 274. The simple is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg . p. 863 D. It means to ordain a law , that is, to issue it for obedience , not to arrange it for publication (Stlting), so that the angels would be described here as the diaskeuastai of the law, an idea which has no support anywhere, and would run counter to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Exo 31:18 ; Exo 32:16 ; Deu 9:10 ). As to the use of the aorist participle in the language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger . p. 774; Bernhardy, p. 383. The tradition that the divine promulgation of the law took place amidst the ministry of angels , is first found in the LXX., Deu 33:2 (not in the original text); then in Heb 2:2 , Act 7:38 ; Act 7:53 , Joseph. Antt . xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan theology. Comp. on Act 7:53 ; Delitzsch, on Heb 2:2 . Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not know it or was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other traditional teachings, 1Co 10:4 , 2Co 12:2 ), it is a mere mistaken evasion to explain as inter or coram (Calovius, Loesner, Morus), which would have ultimately to be referred to the idea “by the mediation of” (as 2Ti 2:2 ). The same remark applies to the view which looks upon the even as men , like Moses and Aaron (Zeger, and revived by Cassel, d. Mittler e. exeg. Versuch , 1855); Chrysostom left it optional to understand it either of priests or of angels . As to the monstrous amplifications which this tradition of the agency of the angels underwent at the hands of the later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth . I. p. 309 f. Paul does not look upon the angels as authors of the law (as held by Schulthess, Voigtlnder in Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal . IV. p. 139 ff., and Huth, Commentat . Altenb. 1854), a point which is certain from the whole view taken in biblical history of the law generally as divine (see the apostle’s own designation of the law as , Rom 7:22 ; Rom 7:25 ), and as (vers. 10, 13, Gal 4:21 f., et al .), and here especially is all the more decidedly indicated by the use of the (and not ), for every reader in fact conceived of the angels as ministering spirits of God (comp. LXX. Deu 33:2 : ), who accompanied the Lord appearing in majesty; and consequently no one could attach any other sense to than “ ministerio angelorum,” which is clear as the meaning in Heb 2:2 from in Gal 3:3 .
[143] ] For Moses received the tables of the law from God, and carried them down to the people. Thus in the legislation he was the middle person between the Giver of the law and its recipients; with the tables in his hand , he was God’s envoy to Israel, acting between the two parties. On account of this historical circumstance (Exo 31:18 ; Exo 32:15 ), is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of designating the mediation ( ), but quite literally: comp. Exo 32:15 ; Lev 26:46 . In the N.T. the designation of Moses as forms the basis of the expression in Heb 8:6 ; Heb 9:15 ; Heb 12:24 ; and on the subject itself, comp. Act 7:38 . This designation does not occur in the O.T. or in the Apocrypha; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator , , also . See Schoettgen, Hor . p. 738 f.; Wetstein, p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos . II. p. 678 f. A; and on the matter itself, Deu 5:5 ; also Joseph. Antt . iii. 5. 3. The better known and the more celebrated Moses was as mediator of the law (comp. Aboth R. Nath . i. 1, “Legem, quam Deus Israelitis dedit, non nisi per manus Mosis dedit”), the more decidedly must we reject every interpretation in which the not more precisely defined by Paul, but presumed to have its historical reference universally familiar is not referred to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most of the Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; so also Beza, Lyra, Erasmus, Calvin, Pareus, Calovius, and others), who, following 1Ti 2:5 , Heb 8:6 ; Heb 9:15 ; Heb 12:24 , take the Mediator to be Christ , [144] but also to Schmieder’s view ( nova interpr. Gal 3:19-20 , Numburg. 1826), that an angel is intended the angel of the law , who, according to Jewish theology, had the special duty of teaching Moses the law. Certainly the Rabbins speak of an angel of the law (he was called Jefifia; see Jalkut Rubeni , f. 107. 3); but this part of their teaching cannot be shown to have existed in the time of the apostles, nor can it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted by Schmieder (Exo 19:19 f., Exo 20:18 , Exo 33:11 ; Num 12:5-8 ; Deu 5:4 f.; also Exo 33:18-23 ; Exo 40:35 ; Deu 33:2 ; Psa 68:18 ; Act 7:53 ; Mal 3:1 ). See also, in opposition to Schmieder, [145] especially Lcke in the Stud. u. Krit . p. 97 f.
The object for which Paul has added , is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordinate position held by the law in comparison with that of the gospel or that of the promise, inasmuch as the former was ordained not directly by God, but through angels and a mediator [146] (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Estius, Semler, Rosenmller, Tychsen, Flatt, Rckert, Usteri, de Wette, Baur, Ewald, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others; comp. also Olshausen, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl . p. 77; Vogel in the Stud. u. Krit . 1865, p. 530), but to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination. So Calvin and others, including Winer, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Matthias; comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol p. 284. It may be decisively urged in favour of the latter view, (1) that, if the mention of the angels was intended to suggest a lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher relation must have been distinctly expressed (as in Heb 2:2 ), or at least must have been quite definitely discoverable from the immediate context (by the addition of a perhaps, or the like). Regarded in themselves, the appearance of angels and the agency of angels (comp. also Gal 1:8 ) are always conceived as something majestic and glorifying, [147] even in respect to Christ (Mat 24:31 ; Mat 25:31 ; Joh 1:25 ; 1Ti 3:16 , et al .), and especially in respect to the law (LXX. Deu 33:2 ; Act 7:38 ; Act 7:53 ), the bestowal of which was one of the high divine distinctions of Israel (Rom 9:4 ). Just as little can it be said (2) that is a depreciatory statement, for in fact the gospel also is given ; to which argument the objection cannot be made, that the Mediator of the gospel, as the Son of God, is far more exalted than the mediator of the law: for does not state at all what kind of mediator it was who intervened in the promulgation of the law, but leaves the dignity or lowliness of his person entirely out of view, and asserts only that a mediator was employed in the giving of the law; so that in respect of this relation regarded by itself there was no qualitative difference between the law and the gospel: both were mediated , given through the hand of a mediator . By way of comparison and contrast with the gospel, or some such expression must have been used, whereby the mediation of the law would be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (3) it by no means formed a part of the plan and object of the apostle to depreciate the law as a less divine institution, a course which, besides being inconsistent with his recognition of the law elsewhere (Rom 7:12-25 ), would have been even unwise in dealing with zealots for the law; whereas it was in the highest degree appropriate to acknowledge the high dignity of the law as evinced in the majesty and solemn formality of its promulgation, and then to show that it had by no means cancelled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the covenant of promise, while the apostle’s opponents could not find any antagonism to that law. In opposition to these arguments, the appeal to , Gal 3:20 (Usteri, Schneckenburger, de Wette), has the less weight, because in and (Gal 3:19 ) God in fact is obviously the acting subject, and the promise also was expressed passively by (without ). According to Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 299 ff., Paul intends to express “the pneumatic truth,” that, in the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy of salvation was to be that of a mediator, viz. between promise and fulfilment. But if this were so, how wonderfully would Paul have concealed his thoughts! He must have said that this mediatorial position of the law exhibited itself in the form of its bestowal; for this in itself, and apart from any other intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as historically familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of the law. The law itself would not be placed by these attributes in the category of the . Nor is Stlting’s view more worthy of acceptance, who, in . , detects the idea: “ in order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of Abraham ” (Heb 1:14 ), and explains to mean that the law served as an instrument to the mediator for reconciling discordant parties with one another (and these parties are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles ). These two ideas, which are only in a very indirect way compatible with the scope of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law to the gospel, or with history itself, could not have been found out by the readers, especially after Gal 3:18 , and after . , and would have needed a more precise explanation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison with the history of the giving of the law, which was familiar to every reader, the two points could only be understood as reminiscences of the historical circumstances in question; and in particular could not be conceived as a reconciling mediator, but only in the sense conveyed in Act 7:38 .
[140] On ver. 19, see Stlting, Beitrge z. Exegese d. Paul. Br . 1869, p. 50 ff.
[141] Some unexegetically combine the two explanations, as Bengel: “ut agnoscerentur et invalerescerent.”
[142] Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 947, appropriately remarks: “ cum genitivo dictum: in gratiam alicuius, inde alicuius aut hominis aut rei causa significans, quamquam minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae Ammonii doctrina est, p. 53.” Comp. 1Jn 3:12 .
[143] is a word that belongs to the later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, et al .). Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 121. It occurs in the LXX only in Job 9:33 .
[144] So also very recently Culmann, sum Verstndn. der Worte Gal 3:20 , Strassb. 1864.
[145] With whom Schneckenburger agrees. See on ver. 20.
[146] Luther, 1538: “Lex est servorum vox, evangelium Domini .” Hofmann: Paul gives his readers to understand that the event of the giving of the law was no fulfilment of the promise (see, however, on ver. 20). Bengel: God committed the law to angels “ quasi alienius quiddam et severius .” Buhl confines himself to saying that Paul wished to represent the difference between the mode of revelation in the case of the law and that of the covenant of promise. But the question regarding the purpose of this representation as bearing on the apostle’s argument thus remains unanswered. According to Hilgenfeld, Paul’s intention was to detach as far as possible the origin of the law from the supreme God; and in this respect also he was the precursor of Gnosticism.
[147] Hence we must not say with Schmid, bibl. Theol . II. p. 280, that the intention was to intimate that the giving of the law was not “the absolute normal act ” of the divine economy.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(Gal 3:19 to Gal 4:7.)
a. The law had its own sufficient end, having respect to transgressions, and so far from opposing to the promises, it had the office of preparing the way for their fulfilment, as a schoolmaster unto Christ
Footnotes:
[26]Gal 3:15[, simply confirmed. If anything be supplied, it need not be in the conditional form of the E. V.R.]
[27]Gal 3:15.[Disannulleth is now obsolete, the simple form being of precisely the same signification. Addeth thereto i. e. new conditions.R.]
[28]Gal 3:16.[The change in order is necessary to emphasize and to his seed. , . A. et al. Lachmann, Tischendorf Meyer, et al., instead of , Rec.R.]
[29]Gal 3:17.[The structure of this verse is cumbrous, but the insertion of that renders it still more so.R.]
[30]Gal 3:17. is lacking in several MSS. including . The connection however favors the belief in its genuineness, since otherwise the argument in Gal 3:16 would hardly be turned to practical account. [Omitted in . A. B. C. many versions, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot. Retained by Griesbach, Wordsworth, bracketted by Ellicott. If retained, may be rendered to Christ, or for Christ. See Exeg. Notes.R]
[31]Gal 3:17.[cannot may be implied, but is not expressed. Invalidate is preferable to annul, as the Greek word differs from that rendered annul (Gal 3:15).R.]
[32]Gal 3:18.[, has given freely, given of grace. We have no single word to express itR.]
(Gal 3:19-24.)
19Wherefore then serveth the law [lit. what then is the law]33 It was added]34 because of [the] transgressions, till the seed should come to whom35 the promise was [has been] made; and it was ordained [being ordained]36 by [by means of] angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God Isaiah 21 one. Is the law then against the promises of God?37 God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should [would] 22have been38 by the law. But [, But, on the contrary]39 the Scripture hath concluded [shut up]40 all under sin, that [in order that] the promise by faith of [or in] Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up [kept in ward, shut up41 under the law] unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was [So that the law hath been or become]42 our schoolmaster to bring us [omit to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
b. But for this very reason it has fulfilled its purpose, when it has brought us to faith, and believers, as children (sons) of God and heirs, are no longer under the law.
(Gal 3:25-29.)
25But after [now]43that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children [all sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been [were]44 baptized into Christ have [omit have] put on Christ 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [no male and female]45; for ye are all [all are]46 one in 29Christ Jesus. And [But, ] if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and [or omit and]47 heirs according to the promise.
(Gal 3:23-29.The Epistle for New Years festival.)
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?[What then is the object of the law?R.] If the inheritance is not to come by the law, but still of promise, the objection is obvious: why then did not God suffer the promise to stand alone? Why then did the law come afterwards? Certainly this was in that case superfluous!To this Paul answers, in effect, thus: was the law then purposeless, if it had not precisely this purpose, of mediating the obtaining of the inheritance? Could it not have another purpose? Yes, this was the case, it had a purpose, but one very different from that of being the means of securing the inheritance. What then?
The direct answer is not given immediately, but is introduced with: It was added because of the transgressions.This means, simply, on account of transgressions was the law added. Transgressions, multiplying and becoming aggravated, gave, in the first place, occasion for adding the law, necessarily brought it to pass that God came with respect to His people into an entirely different, more distant relation than existed, in the covenant of promise, between Him and the patriarchs. Instead of the more fatherly relation existing hitherto, God was constrained to place Himself in a relation involving the exercise of severe discipline, involving rigorous requirements and commands, nay, sharp threatenings, as it is afterwards expressed: We were kept in ward, shut up under the law. And as this relation so different from the former had been occasioned by transgressions, it was of course precisely in its right place where the transgressions of men prevailed, and it was designed, with reference to this, not so much in order to prevent them, as rather, by its commandments and prohibitions, and the threatenings annexed, to bring them under a more stringent accountability (which now first became possible), and a plainly expressed curse. Comp. Ewald: In order, because offences had come into the world, to punish them the more severely. (At first the judgment of death had kept the sense of sin alive. As men now were too accustomed to this, the law then came, and therewith the stricter imputation of sin, the curse more severely denounced, the obedience more rigorously required. Rieger.) At the most this is as far as we are to go in the explanation of . A more precise declaration as to the positive purpose of the law in relation to transgressions is not yet given here; and cannot therefore be deduced from the general expression; for then the second objection (Gal 3:21) would no longer be possible; it is in the refutation of this that Paul first expresses himself more particularly. The common explanation therefore: For the sake of transgressions = to induce them (agreeably to what Paul elsewhere says of the effect of the law to promote sin), is at least in no way indicated. The question whether Paul had it in mind would not arise before Gal 3:22-24. That the word does not necessitate this explanation, is shown by such passages as Luk 7:47; Luk 3:12. [The view here suggested seems to be in the main that of Ellicott and Wordsworth [Milton. Paradise Lost, 7:285). The purpose of the law as here set forth was, not (1) to prevent transgression, nor (2) to create, multiply transgressions, though elsewhere this is mentioned as its effect, but (3) to bring to light the transgressions of it already occurring and to occur, to make them palpable, to awaken a conviction of sin in the heart, and make man feel his need of a Saviour (Ellicott). Thus the law had a supplementary, parenthetical, provisional and manductory character, and came in, as it were, incidentally (Wordsworth).R.] To this purpose of the law there then agree also:
1. The limited duration of its binding force, continuing only till the seed should come, for with that its purpose in reference to transgressions was fulfilled. (Why? is answered Gal 3:23, sq.) The seed to whom the promise has been made (see on Gal 3:16) is Christ, for He is the universal Heir; those who are Christs are then, it is true, included also in this seed, and become therefore joint-heirs with Him (Gal 3:29). 2. The manner of its origin: ordained by means of angels in the hand of a mediator. As agents in giving the law (not as its authors), Paul designates the angels, agreeably to the ancient tradition, which appears first LXX. Deu 33:2 (not in the original); and also Heb 2:2; Act 7:53; Josephus, Antiq. 15, 5, 3, and in the Rabbins. In the hand of a mediatorMoses. Moses received the tables of the law from God, and brought them down to the people. In the hand is therefore to be taken strictly. The explanation of most of the Fathers [so Barnes.R.] referring it to Christ is incorrect. [Lightfoot remarks: It will be seen that St. Pauls argument here rests in effect on our Lords Divinity as its foundation, otherwise He would have been a mediator in the same sense in which Moses was a mediator. In another and a higher sense St. Paul himself so speaks of our Lord (1Ti 2:5).R.] Schneider refers it to the angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special commission to teach Moses the law. Unquestionably the Rabbins speak of an angel of the law, but it is no more possible to prove this Theolo-gumenon to have existed in Pauls time, than it is to establish it from the Bible (Meyer). The purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity, and still less, indeed, is it, as even Meyer and Wieseler strangely assume, to bring the glory of the law, in the magnificence and solemnity of its institution, before the reader. The dignity of the law itself is not under consideration, but its design, as compared with the covenant of promise. We are not, in reading this verse, to pause without reason at , as though this were a complete idea, but should read the whole verse together. It is true, we first read: on account of transgressions it was added, but the complete statement is: on account of transgressions it was added in the definite way which is described, 1. by till the seed, etc., 2. by ordained by, etc. In this way did it originate, that Isaiah , 1. in an entirely different way from the covenant of promise; it was not an immediate giving of a promise, not a fatherly provision and agreement on the part of God, but was introduced by a mediation, and a double one, first of angels, and then, and not before, of a human mediator expressly chosen; the former mediation being on the side of God, the latter being given at the desire of the people themselves. (How strangely does this appear in contrast with the former manifestations of God, in which the promises were given. Reiger.) This is meant to point out how much more of strangeness God used towards the people in the law, how much more distant a relation it established than the covenant of promise; how could it then have had the same purpose as the covenant?48But this manner of origin 2. corresponded entirely with the purpose of the law as it has been stated: because of the transgressions. As these made the law in general necessary, so, moreover, they were the reasons why God came, only through angels, into relation to His people, and that the people on their side had need of a mediator, to hold intercourse with God. The difference indicated in the latter circumstance between the law and the covenant of promise, is then moreover expressly dwelt upon in the following verse.
Gal 3:20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.The first words are simple and plain: A mediator ( , the Art. generic) can never be mediator of a single party, the very idea presupposes more than one, two at least, between whom he is . The question can then only by, whether the design of the remark is, primarily, to express something respecting the mediator himself, personally, or something respecting his function. In the first case the sense would be: He belongs not merely to one, but to the two, the two parties between whom he mediates. So now here in concreto: the mediator of the law belonged to the two parties whose mediator he was, viz.: God and men; and the sense more particularly would be: therefore not merely to God, but also to men. The remark would then be intended as an affirmation respecting the nature of the law, that is, has not only a Divine, but also a human character.Yet this explanation by no means commends itself. If we join with , the interpretation: He belongs not merely to one, is much less obvious than the other: He has to do not merely with one, but with two, mediates between two. Still simpler is the construction of Ewald, who joins immediately with =the mediator of one is not, does not exist, is an impossibility. [So Wordsworth.R.]
But God is one.The words can mean nothing else: has a numerical signification, i.e., it can have no other meaning than that of the preceding , hence not=the same, One with Himself, etc. It is these words especially that have given rise to such an enormous number of attempts at explanation. As regards these the reader is referred to the monographs of C. F. Bonitz, C. F. Anton Reil, Koppe, or the ordinary commentaries, such as those of Meyer and Wieseler, where the more important modern explanations are arranged in order. A detailed examination may be spared here, especially as the passage of itself is not doctrinally important. [Meyer thus remarks on the course of exegesis: The many different explanations of the passage, and there must be more than 250 of them, have been thus multiplied especially in more modern times; for the Fathers pass lightly over the words, which are plain in themselves, without regarding their pragmatic difficulties, for the most part applying the first clause, which is generally taken correctly, to Christ, who is the Mediator between God and men, some however casting a side glance at the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. Although there was no special dogmatic interest connected with the passage, the variety of interpretations in the 16th and 17th centuries (see Pooles Synopsis) was such, that every expositor of importance took his own separate course, yet without polemical spirit, since no dogmatical question was at issue. The variety has become still greater since the middle of the 18th century, especially since the rise of grammatico-historical exegesis (the phi-logical errors of which exegesis it has however fully experienced), and is still increasing. How often too the absurdest fancies and crudest attempts have availed themselves of our text, the explanation of which seems to be regarded as an exegetical work of art! He then answers fifteen of the later opinions, besides alluding to others. Jowett reckons 430 interpretations! What a testimony to the amount of exegetical labor bestowed on the Scriptures! That too on a passage which is at best but a general statement in support of a single point in a long argument, which seeks not so much to set forth the gospel, as to remove mistaken views respecting the law! How thankful we should be that the! gospel texts are so pellucid; had they been less so, we should doubtless have 250 interpretations of [ them also. As the exegesis now stands, it is perhaps better to admit that the Verse is (2Pe 3:16). The passage is undoubtedly genuine, and does not refer to Christ. Thus much seems clear. Schmoller gives below an exposition, to which he has added in the second edition another (on which comment is made in the proper place). To this the reader will find added the views of Ellicott and Lightfoot, which have been chosen on account of their clearness, a quality especially desirable, when the explanation has so often been lucus a non lucendo.R.]
The question is mainly this: Is (of the second clause) simply metabatic, or adversative? A decision in favor of the one view, gives an entirely different sense from that arrived at by adopting the other.In the first case we have simply the minor premise of a syllogism, is with subsumed under the denied with . The mediator is not a mediator of one, now God is one, therefore, &c. The conclusion now may be various. Wieseler gives it: Therefore the mediator has reference not merely to God, but also to men. But the thought that there is found in , namely, God is only one party, appears to have too little force. Ewald gives it: Therefore the Mediator has not reference to God, for God is only one, consists not, for instance, of two internally distinct Gods, or of an earlier and later God; it is clear therefore that Moses as mediator, did not mediate, say between the God of the promise and the God of the law, and thereby confound the law with the promise, and so annul the former by what was latter and later, but that he only mediated between God and the people of that time. Ingenious, but far-fetched. The chief objection, however, to this whole view of as metabatic is, that the following sentence in Gal 3:21 points too evidently in and to a previous antithesis, from which then deduces an inference. The above mentioned explanations are wanting in the recognition of the inner connection of the two verses (Meyer); the thought breaks off, and an entirely new one begins. Besides, according to Ewalds explanation the question as to a would not have been in place here, as this is precisely what the foregoing thought would have denied. is therefore doubtless to be taken adversatively, and the of the first member is the metabatic of a minor premise. Paul had said : The law was given through a mediator. Now with one there is no mediator, while on the other hand God is One. therefore it might be inferred that the law is against the promises. Meyer: Gal 3:20 contains two loci communes, from which a possible inference (Gal 3:21) with respect to the two concretes which are under consideration, is drawn. Sense: A mediator presupposes two, therefore also the law does; in the case of that, there were two parties, between which the mediator intervened;on the other hand God is One, not a plurality, if the promise therefore, of which God is author (comp. Gal 3:18; Gal 3:21), had its origin through Him alone, there was only a single personage active thereby, it was a purely Divine act, not resting upon a contract of two parties. How entirely different in origin, therefore, was Gods covenant of promise, from the law! (Was it not thereby clearly indicated, that the purpose of the law was not to be the same and therefore is not the same, as that of the covenant of promise, that therefore its purpose in specie cannot have been, to securedirectlythe for men?) But can it not be inferred from this, that the law is against the promises of God? that it stands in conflict with them? so that,-because the law has come, the promises are no longer to be regarded as valid, and a fulfilment of them is not to be looked for; as at the giving of a constitution by compact between prince and people the qestion may arise whether previous promises given on one side are still to be fulfilled? The main point is to understand (Gal 3:21) rightly (even Meter does not explain this correctly). One objection, that the law is then purposeless, if the inheritance is not of the law, Paul has refuted in Gal 3:19-20, by pointing to the fact that it was given for an entirely different purpose, as appears from the very manner of its origin. But out of this refutation of the first objection arises a second, whether by this superadding of the law () the purpose of the covenant of promise be not hindered; first a free promise on the part of God (without regard to ), and then a law, coming through a mediator, who intervened between God and the people, originating therefore by a compact of God and the people (with definite reference to ); does not this then hinder the first, and so far do it away?This abrogation however is not to be taken in the sense of Gal 3:17, that the law came in the place of the promise, so that the inheritance would now come of the law, for this is already refuted, first by the very course of the argument Gal 3:15 sq. from the idea of a , then also by the refutation of the objection that then the law is purposeless, Gal 3:19-20. The question in Gal 3:21 is to be understood as implying an apprehension that by the law the attainment of the inheritance (which, it is presupposed, according to the proof already given, can only be attained by promise) may be hindered, maybe made, comparatively speaking; impossible. It is not, therefore, the form of the promise which is here meant, but the substance; on which account we have here again the plural ; the question being, whether the law does not render the fulfilment of the promises of God impossible. This alone gives a progress of thought, and this alone is entirely congruous with what follows. Paul now refutes this second objection also. The law in no wise interposes an obstacle to the promises of God, but rather, in itself, agrees fully therewith, nay, although it had not itself the ability or function of bringingthe promises immediately into fulfilment, it was meant nevertheless to serve the purpose of rendering men partakers of this fulfilment by faith in Christ (Gal 3:23-24), and with this the law itself then attained its end (Gal 3:25 sq.).
I allow this explanation, given in the first edition, to remain. It was grounded on that of Meyer, and has at all events this in its favor, in distinction from other explanations, that it puts Gal 3:21 in immediate connection with Gal 3:20, and understands the question in Gal 3:21 as seemingly resulting from Gal 3:20, while the other explanations, though otherwise having much in their favor, assume that the thought breaks off with Gal 3:20, and that in Gal 3:21 Paul merely turns back to Gal 3:17 or 19.However a new explanation of Gal 3:20 has been given by Dr. Vogel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1865, Heft 3, which, it is true, also fails to give a connection between Gal 3:20 and Gal 3:21, but which, on the other hand, points out the connection between Gal 3:19-20 with better success than usual, and which, in particular, gives due weight to the statement, the law was ordained by means of angels. In the other explanations full justice has not been done to this statement, which though otherwise so abrupt, could not have been made without a purpose. Vogel starts from the usually neglected point of the signification of , and shows that by no means signifies merely, and not even predominantlyas is commonly assumed in advanceone who stands in the midst between two, but that it means most commonly one who acts instead of some one, and cares for his affairs.A genitive joined with it signifies either the matter, which is accomplished by the mediation, or the person whom the represents, or (which however cannot be shown of Pauls use of it) the several parties between whom he discharges his function (as in 1Ti 2:5). When now it is said of the : ; this of course involves the positive affirmition: a mediator can only be the mediator of more than one. And here Vogel admits that it would be most obvious to understand this plurality of a plurality of parties, between whom the mediator stands in the midst, but decides nevertheless in favor of the other interpretation of : representativeof several persons, for the discharge of their affairs. It is true a representative may very well represent one person only; but then we must understand a representation for the purpose of mediation. In that case it is most natural, only one having to conclude a compact, that he should do it in his own person. But if several have it to do, and that in such a way that the transaction cannot be completed by all, a mediation by one person acting instead of many becomes necessary, and such a person is a . The sense would then be: where a mediator appears, we are obliged to understand him as representing a number of persons. Vogel is led to this interpretation, in the first place by the sentence immediately following: =but (adversative) Go l is one. He therefore is not that plurality, which the mediator as such implies. Thereforethe strict logical inferencethe mediator is not Gods mediator, does not appertain as mediator to God. But whose mediator is this mediator? who is this plurality?
The answer, given Gal 3:19 is: in these we have the plurality we were looking for. The law is, according to Paul, . (Comp. Gal 3:15, .: the law is not an in the sense that the covenant of promise was thereby prejudiced, or destroyed; it is, however, a comp. which, however, was not intended to annul the covenant of promise, for it was only meant to be in force till the seed should come, etc., that is, only for a time, only till the fulfilment of the covenant of promise should take place. The covenant, therefore, neither could nor should be in any way infringed upon.) The author of the law is not mentioned here, as He had not been at . Of course God is to be understood. But Paul is not specially engaged, in making this authorship prominent. He stops with declaring that the law was ordainedpromulgatedthrough angels, having in mind thereby to place it on a lower level than the covenant of promise. With in the hand of a mediator (by which of course no one else than Moses is to be understood) Paul now proceeds to name the signs by which the inferior dignity of the law may be known. The disposition of it committed to the angels, took effect through a , who, it is manifest, is to be regarded then as their delegate. The angels, the sense might be, did not even themselves promulgate the law in their own person, but this was done through a (human) mediator. The sense therefore would be: ordained for men, that is, the people of Israel, through angels, who, moreover, availed themselves of a mediator.Yet Paul, by in the hand of a mediator, is not so much giving a fresh sign of the inferior rank of the law, as strengthening the previous affirmation, ordained by angels. The circumstance that a mediator was engaged in the work, was not meant so much to explain the manner of the angelic ministration, as to establish the fact of it. The presence of a mediator was in Pauls mind closely connected with this, but by no means so closely connected in the current doctrine. How far this circumstance, that a mediator (namely, Moses) had a joint agency in the giving of the law, is a proof of this ministry of angels, is explained in Gal 3:20. In the hand of a mediator Paul has said and had to say: but where a is present, a plurality of parties represented by him is to be assumed; God however is not a plurality, but One: The law, therefore, at whose promulgation a plurality intervened, did not proceed from God, but from the angels (these being the only two parties conceivable)and therefore form a plurality. The clause would not then be properly a proof (as indeed it is not introduced by ), but the fact of the being ordained in the hand of a mediator would be simply alluded to for confirmation of the by means of angels. It would then in fact be best to include the clause in a parenthesis. This interpretation is not disproved by the fact that in many other passages Moses is explicitly named as dealing with the people by commission from God Himself. Paul could still have the right to say that if in a single passage, as here, the giving of the law is represented as the work of angels, Moses must necessarily be regarded as their delegate; comp. Act 7:38.It might also deserve attention, that in Gal 3:21 the are expressly distinguished by the epithet . Is not this connected with the fact that previously at the mention of the law, its Divine origin was entirely passed over and the giving of the law represented as the work of angels?
The question in Gal 3:21 would not then express a conclusion apparently resulting from the immediately preceding statement. It would rather express amazement, as to how any one could even imagine that the law, which is proximately to be referred to the angels, could invalidate the promises of God. It is too weak for that. And what would thus be improbable on account of the mode of the laws origin, would then be further refuted by the truth, that the law is incapable of giving life.
Even on this interpretation of Gal 3:20, however,independently of the explanation of the sense given by us to the (see above) and to (see below) might be preserved.
[The above view to which such prominence is given on account of its novelty and originality, is in all essential features the same as that of Gfrrer [Geschichte des Urchristenthums, das Jahrhundert des Heils; Erste Abtheilung, pp. 228, 229, Stuttgart, 1838). So that, although thirty years old, it has met with less consideration from commentators than is here given to it in its revived form. As Gfrrer himself intimates that this interpretation is easy to be perceived by the eye which has been sharpened by accurate acquaintance with the Jewish mode of thought, it may be allowable to suggest that were this Pauls meaning, his Rabbinical training would be more apparent than in Gal 3:16. Besides this view would make Paul apparently disingenuous in his attempt to lower the claims of the law, which is Gods law,through angels, by the hand of a mediator. And yet the chief peculiarity of this novel interpretation is its ignoring that fact. This vitiates the whole, in our view. As Schmoller remarks Gal 3:19, the purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity.49
Subjoined is the view of Ellicott (2d ed.): The context states briefly the four distinctive features of the law with tacit reference to the promise, 1) restricted and conditioned; 2) temporary and provisional; 3) mediately, not immediately, given by God; 4) mediately, but not immediately, received from God. Three of these are passed over; the last as the most important, is noticed; the law was with, the promise was without a mediator. Gal 3:20 thus appears a syllogism of which the conclusion is omitted: Now a mediator does not appertain to one (standing or acting alone); but (in the promise) God is one (does stand and act alone); therefore (in the promise) a mediator does not appertain to God. Is then the law (a dispensation which, besides other distinctions, involved a mediator) opposed to the promises which rested on God (and involved no mediator)? God forbid. According to this view the only real difficulty is narrowed to the minor proposition. How was God one? And the answer seems,not because He is essentially unity, nor because He is one by Himself, and Abraham is one by himself, nor yet because He is both the Giver, the Father, and the Receiver, the Son, united (as held in ed. 1), but, with the aspect that the last clause of Gal 3:18 puts on the
whole reasoning,because He dealt with Abraham singly and directly, stood alone, and used no mediator. This has the merit of simplicity and is a safe view. Lightfoot is perhaps not so close in his explanation, but it may well be added: The very idea of mediation. supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two parties, God on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. But God (the Giver of the promise) is one. Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties, there is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The Giver is every thing, the recipient nothing. Thus the primary sense of one here is numerical. The further idea of unchangeableness may perhaps be suggested; but if so, it is rather accidental than inherent. On the other hand this proposition is quite unconnected with the fundamental statement of the Mosaic law, the Lord thy God is one God, though resembling it in form.R.]
Gal 3:21. God forbid. For if there had been a law, etc.That the law is not in the sense indicated against the promises of God, Paul proves first by the consideration, that if a law had been given which could make alive, would have proceeded from it, i. e., not as it is commonly and altogether erroneously explained, in connection with the erroneous view as to the force of the objection: if a law that could do this had been given, and came from it, then were the law actually against the promises of God (a sense to which , rightly taken, is unsuitable); but Paul really wishes to show that the law accords with the promises, and cannot be intended to annul these; for if the law were able to make alive, would actually proceed from it, that is the same effect which is to be wrought through the promises. The law cannot, therefore, in itself, have any tendency hostile to the promises. But, he continues, the Scripture has shut up all, etc.=the power to give life () was, as it were, denied the law, in order that the promise might be given by faith in Jesus Christ. It could not give life, and thereby bring righteousness, if only on account of the sins of men; but, in truth, it was not to do this, this was in no wise its design, for the promise was to come . Given life. = to make inwardly living, not == to give eternal life, for the sense is: if the law could awaken man from his death in sins, and give him spiritual life, righteousness (= ), would actually proceed from the law, for with the , the condition of justification would be of course perfectly realized. The conclusion is therefore from cause to effect. Meyer incorrectly takes it from effect to cause, in connection with his explanation of as the bestowment of eternal life. The making alive is not indeed actually the cause of justification, but this is only because a making alive through the law is not possible. It is however precisely this unrealized case, viz., a making alive through the law, that is here spoken of. [The being dead in sins is hero taken for granted; what is meant by life? Wieselers view is given above. Meyer as usual restricts it to future eternal life; but Lightfoot well says, it includes alike the spiritual life in the present and the glorified life in the future, for in the Apostles conception the two are blended together and inseparable. This seems to accord better with New Testament usage. The reasoning then is not from the whole to its part (Alford), for the justification is not strictly a part, but a condition of life, nor from cause to effect, but from effect to cause. Life does not comefrom the law, it does not, was not designed to justify, it is not against the promise, but has another purpose afterwards set forth.R.]
Verily.= in fact, and not merely according to the fancy of the Judaizers, as is now the case, the hypothesis being denied.Righteousness. is of course not immediately identical with the inheritance, but it is an essential element of it, and the one treated of throughout the Epistle, which to be attained by faith.
Gal 3:22. But on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin. is the strengthened , to shut up, (not to shut together): then more tropically with to deliver up as a prisoner to some one; and generally, to give up into the power of any one, to deliver over. in this verse and the next one expresses this state of subjection still more strongly. : the Scripture, generally, the written word of God: not the law. : collective whole=all men;[50] as a fact, doubtless including Gentiles as well as Jews; although, as the context shows, the immediate reference is only to those who have the law, and of whom the Scripture speaks, that is, the Jews.The sense of this somewhat peculiar expression is easily deduced from Gal 3:21. It is meant to explain, why the law (and generally, any law) could not make alive=impart spiritual life. If the law had been able , then would have proceeded from it; an impossible thing, for the Scripture has placed all under the power of sin, it was therefore not possible to fulfil the law and in this way to come to spiritual life; for the law certainly has not the power to destroy the dominion of sin, such a dominion as exists; it has not the power to break as it were the yoke of sin. But how far now can such a shutting up under sin be ascribed to the Scripture? Of course only in so far as it bears witness to this being shut up. The sense therefore is: according to the testimony of the Scripture all are subjected under the power of sin=sin exercises a dominion, and that over all. This was the fault of men, but the active expression: the Scripture has done it, points nevertheless to an activity, which, it is true, could not have been exercised by the Scripture (for this, in itself, could only be a witness), but which yet was exercised by the Author of the Scripture, God. He has placed all under the dominion of sin (and that, as appears afterwards, with the design that the promise might be given by faith, etc.). But this, of course, He could only do for the punishment of men, on account of their trangressions; it is a punishment ordained of God, that sin should exercise a formal dominion over men.The connection stated with the previous verse excludes an explanation which otherwise would have a good deal for it, especially because then a function would be ascribed immediately to the Scripture. The explanation is this: the Scripture has, by its declaration, its portrayal, as it were, shut up=subjected all men without leaving any escape or exception, to the sentence: Thou art a sinner! and therewith has also shut them up under the curse which sin brings.Still less is it meant to be said that the Scripture constrains all to acknowledge that they are sinners. Nor is there any allusion here to the truth, that the law, instead of restraining sin, has promoted it. Unquestionably, however, we are warranted by what Paul elsewhere says of the law, to bring in this thought, not in order to explain the words, but in order to gain a clearer conception of the fact.
The purpose of this shutting up all under sin was, that the promise should not be given by the law but by faith of Jesus Christ and therefore that matters should proceed according to the covenant of God, that is, that the promised good should be given, in a certain sense attained, not by merit of works, but of free grace. (This was the purpose of God of course with the foreknowledge that this end, on account of the sinfulness of men, cannot be reached through the law.) But more specially this shutting up under sin had as its aim, that the promise might be given . For the law was given until the seed should come to whom it had been promised: this shutting up all under sin in consequence of which the law could not make alive, had therefore as its aim, that the promise should be given by faith on this Seed, that is, this Seed is Himself first made partaker of the promised good, since, according to Gal 3:16, the promises were given also to Him, and to others only through Him. Therefore also the duplicate expression by faith of Jesus Christto them that believe.It no longer concerns the writer merely to show that the promise is given by faith or to them that believe, agreeably to its original nature, and therefore really of promise, or of grace. This has already been established in Gal 3:17-18, but now, after the new epoch of the history of redemption, the epoch of law, is expressly called an adventitious [hinzugekommene] period, and the sinful condition of men having been made prominent, the discourse is directed more definitely to the point that the promise is given by faith on Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer, of grace therefore, but of grace ministered in this way. [It is perhaps best, with Ellicott and Alford, to take the genitive of Jesus Christ as both objective and subjective; the Object and the Giver of faith. St. Pauls opponents, as nominal Christians, might hold that the promise came to believers only, but he insists that it came not by the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ. Hence there is no tautology (Lightfoot)R.]The promise: here of course, in the objective sense, the object of promise. Taken generally this is=the inheritance; in a more special application that which is attainable for sinful men by faith of Jesus Christ, is the being justified, as is simply stated in Gal 3:24.The promise, therefore, was to be given by faith; it was not possible by the law on account of sin: but before faith came, the lawand that on account of being shut up under sinor more precisely, the peculiar position of men in respect to the law, was in its proper place, in order to open the way for the revelation of faith. This Paul says in Gal 3:23.
Gal 3:23. But before faith came.Neither here nor anywhere else [in N. T.] does mean the doctrina fidem postulans, the gospel, but subjective faith, which however is made objective. When men at the preaching of the gospel, believe on Christ, faith, which before was wanting, was now come, that is, it had entered, so to speak, the hearts of those who had become believers in Christ (Meyer).We were kept in ward, shut up under the law.We=the Christians from among the Jews. Under the law ( ) is to be joined with shut up (.) and this is then more closely characterized by kept in ward (.), which marks the transition to unto the faith etc. Paul then says first: We were shut up under the law the law was the master to whose power, we were completely subjected, without any freedom of our own. And as such (shut up under the law), we were guarded, kept in ward ()=that we might not become free, in substance: we were held in subjection to the law. What now does this mean? Plainly it. characterizes, briefly and strikingly, the nature of the law; it was a pressing yoke, a constraining power, to which men were subject. It was such by its continual holding up of commandments and prohibitions, and especially by what was connected therewith, the continual, terrifying denunciation of the curse in case of transgression in case of the non-fulfilment of the enjoined conditions. According to this, how can the condition of men under the law be more strikingly depicted than as a being shut up under the law [the perfect participle, which reading we retain, expressing this continued, permanent state.R.], and because no manner of dispensation therefrom was bestowed in the whole epoch before faith was revealed as a . ? [The meaning of is not safely kept, but kept in ward. We were shut up under the law and thus kept prisoners.R.]
The purpose of this representation of the condition of law is no longer merely to place in the light still more clearly the great difference between the law and the covenant of promise in itself (as in Gal 3:19-20), but it is now to be shown how the design of the law, in its deeper significance, nevertheless coincided with that of the covenant, how the former was preparatory to the perfecting of the latter. For we were kept in ward, shut up under the law, says Paul, unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. This is to be taken not merely as temporal, but also as telic=for faith=to the end that it might be possible for faith to be revealed, the same faith therefore, in reference to which it had just been said, that the Scripture shut up all under sin, in order that the promise might be given through it. The direct aim of the law, therefore, was the revelation of this faith, and through this we are made partakers of the promise; so absolutely untrue is it, that it stood in the way of the promise.Revealed: for so long as men had not yet believed on Christ, faith had not yet come into manifestation, it was still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which, as a historical manifestation, was unveiled, when the congregation of believers came into being. Meyer. How far now was this being kept in ward, shut up under the law preparatory for faith, and pointing to it? This Paul does not state; we must fill out the statement for ourselves, which however is not difficult after the preceding remarks. The Scripture has shut up all under sin. But on the other hand these same were kept shut up under the law. What else was purposed thereby (since through it is already excluded), than to awaken and keep continually awake in the soul, the fearful consciousness of standing under the curse of the law (the curse comprehended in the law itself, against transgression of it, against sin), and by this very means, on the other hand, to ground more and more deeply in the soul the conviction of the impossibility of attaining to righteousness through this law. The first effect, the consciousness of deserving the curse is elsewhere (comp. Gal 2:19) designated by Paul as a dying, and this operation of the law as a killing. Comp. 2Co 3:6. In this way it led to the revelation of faith in mens hearts, as to the only way of escape yet possible, or, it led to the longing for a redemption from sin, and thus made men willing for faith. on the Redeemer given by God in Christ. [This was the result, but the state under the law was still objectively real, whether this consciousness were awakened or not Ellicott remarks on the unusual order, that it seems intended to give prominence to , and to present more forcibly the contrast between former captivity and subsequent freedom. Comp. Rom 8:18.R.]
Gal 3:24. So that the law hath been.: an inference. The fact of this being kept in ward, etc., unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed made the law our schoolmaster.This name it deserves, and that for a twofold reason: 1. The [51] approaches his charge with commands and prohibitions, nay, sometimes with threats of punishment, and in general, with limitations of his freedom, and lays upon him in this respect a stringent yoke; there takes place a keeping in ward, shut up under him. This limitation of freedom, and in general this whole relation of subjection, is not however an end in itself, but has place only as a means to an end, serves a higher purpose, namely, that the pupil may be trained for mature age, and for the assuming of that higher grade, for which he is destined; kept in ward, shut up only unto that, which is afterwards to be revealed. And, according to Gal 3:23, the function of the law also had precisely this twofold aspect.This goal that was set for attainment, the second point, was the main thing with the pedagogy of the law; this, therefore, is expressly stated in the added phrase (hath been our schoolmaster) , unto Christ.This is unquestionably relic; this again is more precisely explained by that we might be justified by faith.The goal was Christ=justification by faith in Him. Justification, which the law itself could not bring, because shutting us up under sin, it was yet to open the way for, to conduct to; because it could not itself bring it, was yet to impel to the seeking and attaining of it by faith.
Gal 3:25. But after that faith is come, etc.The law was preparatory to faith in Christ (and so far, indeed, in agreement with the covenant of promise), but for the very reason that it was preparatory, it had only a temporary validity, it ceased with the coming of that for the coming of which it was meant to prepare. Freedom from the law had the way prepared for it by the law itself, leading as it did to faith (how, see on Gal 3:23); but actual freedom came in only with faith. How?
Gal 3:26 explains how (in connection with the aspect of the law as schoolmaster). By the fact that man through faith becomes a son of God. In this conception, however, we are not unduly to emphasize son as is commonly done, and to attribute to it the sense of free, son, come to majority, who therefore no longer stands, as a , under the . No doubt the son of God is also the one of full age, and therefore free; but Paul, instead of the bare notion of majority, substitutes at once a higher, theological idea, that of the Child of God. Whoever now stands to God in the relation of child, can no longer remain under the law, that schoolmaster, whose threats of the wrath of God awaken slavish fear.52=all without distinction. This word is meant to emphasize strongly the power of faith. Whoever he be that has it, becomes a son of God and free from the schoolmaster, therefore you also are free. You writes Paul of set purpose, having before (Gal 3:25) spoken only of the Jewish Christians as those who had previously been under the schoolmaster. But now: You all, even the Gentile Christians, all you who are become believers,that it might come into no ones mind, to place himself, of his own accord, under the schoolmaster, the law.Paul says designedly in Christ Jesus instead of a genitive immediately depending on faith because he wishes to predicate of Christians that they are in Christ Jesus. For he proves that they are sons of God, from their putting on Christ, ver 27.
Gal 3:27. The demonstrative force here appear to be simply in this, that Christ was Gods Son (Meyer). Wieselers objection that Son of God is not used in a similar sense to that in which would be applied to Christ, because it is not used in the sense to a being begotten of God, is a strange one. Certainly that is not meant, but by this very putting on of Him who as begotten of God is Gods Son, believers come into the relation of children to God, of course in the measure in which it is possible with them.It is peculiar that Paul proves that all are the children of God through faith in Christ, immediately from the fact that they all have put on Christ by baptism, and so, without any intermediate step, puts Baptism in the place of Faith. Faith and Baptism, accordingly, are to him in a certain sense convertible ideas, that is, he does not conceive faith without baptism, or baptism without faith; he can therefore prove an effect of faith from an effect of baptism, and doubtless he speaks only to and of such as were not only baptized as well as believers, but with whom also the act of baptism was at the same time an act of faith.The transition, however, from the faith is Christ Jesus to the baptizedin to Christ is easily intelligible in another view also. For nothing proves so clearly that any one has become a Son of God, as that he has put on Christ, and this takes place through the being baptized into Christ in a way that is also objective, and therefore undeniable53. On the other hand, his reference to baptism is of course only secondary; he does not as yet mention it in Gal 3:26, because, according to the connection he is there concerned directly with the effect of faith.
The full import of put on Christ is not developed, yet one thing at least is said, and that is primarily the most importantit involves the having become a son of God. It is not immediately = the putting on of the new man. For the discussion here respects not the ethical quality of the act, but the relation to God involved in it; it is by justification and the relation of children to God given therewith and not by the subsequent sanctification, that we become free from the pedagogy of the law; the filial relation to God does not result from the putting on of the new man, but the reverse. On the other hand, in becoming a son of God, a man naturally has come into an inner relation to Christ, into communion with Him. This inner relation to Christ, in which we invest ourselves with Him, must then without fail lead to this result, that Christ becomes in us the principle of a new life, and we become inwardly transformed. This result is the more certain in that the entrance into relation with Him is so entirely real, through the act of baptism. One cannot enter into Such inward relation with Christ without also experiencing this inward transformation, at least in its principle. The admonition Rom 13:14 : Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, may therefore be understood in the sense of an admonition to a corresponding ethical work=to a becoming like Him through our work.All are children of God by faith (, Gal 3:26; , Gal 3:27). This Paul carries out in the concrete in Gal 3:28.
Gal 3:28. There is neither Jew nor Greek.All these natural antitheses do not come into account in this relation,=if one only believes on Christ, he is a son of God, let him be what else he may. This is tersely expressed at the end of the verse by for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.For this, according to the connection, can mean nothing else than: these distinctions, in a certain sense, antagonisms, do not, as respects being in Christ, come into consideration. All who are in Christ Jesus, are in the same degree sons of God, how different soever they may be in other relations, that is, they are all, () one and the same. Paul, however, goes somewhat farther yet, and by using , says that they are capable of being regarded all together, as one (moral) person.Here too, we are not to think, at least directly, of the new man as if the one new man were meant.Why now precisely this concrete explication of the all in Gal 3:26? The connection shows that the Apostles first concern is to represent the antagonism of Jews and Gentiles as done away in Christ; for by the law this antagonism especially was maintained, and was therefore removed by the falling away of the law. And, on the other hand, the abrogation of the law could not be maintained in full earnest unless that antagonism were regarded as removed. But in order to make this all more vivid, or to place in still stronger light the power and meaning of faith in Christ, he adjoins yet other antitheses, and remarks that they too, in the new relation, are no longer reckoned of account; the slave also is through being in Christ a son of God as well as the freeman, and it is the same with sex. In this also, he appears to have the law still in mind. For these antitheses were maintained by the law; at least the law spoke sometimes of slaves, sometimes of freemen, sometimes of men, sometimes of women, and gave in respect to one class, ordinances which were not in force for another, while in view of faith in Christ, or of baptism in Christs namethese antitheses fell entirely away. [There is a slight change of construction in the last antithesis. The alterable social distinctions are contrasted by , the unalterable natural one is expressed by . The latter distinction is specially applicable as against the Jews insisting on their own spiritual privileges, and on the perpetual obligation of circumcision.Wordsworth. Of this there may be a hint in the use of vial, sons, not children, as e. v. The other sex have now the same privilege once belonging to sons alone. and , generalized by the neuter, as being the only gender which will express both (Alford).R.]
Gal 3:29. But if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed.Because Christ Himself is Abrahams seed (Gal 3:16; Gal 3:19), and those that are His participate in His status.Heirs according to the promisefor it was to Abraham and his seed that the promise was given, therefore=the promise goes then for you also into fulfilment. On the other hand it needs no proof that those who are Christs (because they are heirs by virtue of this fact, that they are Christs) are heirs in the way of the promise of grace, not of works.
[Ellicott: The declaration of Gal 3:7, is now at length substantiated and expanded by twenty-two verses of the deepest, most varied, and most comprehensive reasoning that exists in the whole compass of the great Apostles writings.R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Law and the Covenant. Three points respecting the law are treated of in this section: a) the difference between the law and the covenant of promise; b) the inner relation of the law to the covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance; c) the liberation from the law on the entrance of faith. Upon the first two points we have little more to say in addition to what has been already said in the Exeg. Notes.
a. The difference between the Law and the Covenant of Promise. The law was not only given much later (Gal 3:17), but had also an entirely different character from the covenant of promise made with Abraham, and is not therefore to be regarded as a sort of renewal of that first covenant. The revelation of God to the patriarchs was essentially a different one from the subsequent one at the giving of the law on Sinai. In the first God gave pure, free promises of grace for faith; in the second He also, it is true, gave promises, but imposed as a condition of their fulfilment, the observance of a complex system of law. Or, primarily, the whole sinful people were placed under a constitution of law, and to this promises were attached, but only in the case of obedience; in the case of disobedience, there were threatenings, quite as distinct. To this corresponded the entirely different way in which the law was brought inin the formal way of a compact concluded through a third party, a mediator, where both sides make engagements, and take on themselves obligations. By this was indicated a separation of God and His people, and it was therefore not the normal relation of God to His people, the one corresponding to the nature of God, but only a relation induced by the circumstances, especially by the transgressions of the people at the time; from the beginning, therefore, it pointed beyond itself, but was, no doubt, for a certain time the proper one, adapted to prepare for the relation of grace between God and His people that had been introduced by His dealings with the patriarchs.
b. The inner relation of the Law to the Covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance. Respecting the second point we give here only the apt remarks of Rieger (although his interpretation of Gal 3:22 is in itself incorrect): The attestation of God, written down and publicly promulgated in the law, has so taken hold of us and all our doing and leaving undone, that no denying, palliating, justifying of ourselves can any longer avail anything, but we must give ourselves up guilty and prisoners under the curse denounced against every transgression; and through this captivity under the law, become pliant and ready for faith on the promise, as afterwards for coming humbly to the cross of Christ preached in the gospel, and thus seizing the only way of escape left remaining to us. The law, then, by its confining me under sin, so far from having the will or power to close against me the access to grace, on the contrary drives me into a strait, in which I am most apt to find and lay hold on the only means of escape. Deluding hiding places of the caves of sin, it indeed closes; but the appointed fleeing to the wounds that have atoned for me it furthers, rather than hinders. In brief: the promise ratifies to man everything, the law comes between and denies him all. Thereupon it is thought, God is against Himself, that must be allowed; but at last it turns out, that, the law itself has had to help to this end, namely, that faith and the promise should have the victory. Christ is the laws honor, end, and fulfilment.
c. The liberation from the Law on the entrance of faith. Christ is the laws honor, that is, what honors the law is precisely this, that it leads to Christ. But at the same time and on this very account is He the laws end and fulfilment. The end of the law, for this beyond question is the intention of the whole Epistle, to demonstrate that Christians are no longer under the law, and in Gal 3:25, this is expressly declared: now that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster; he has fulfilled his office.This is, in the first instance, to be understood historically. With the coming of Christ the epoch of the law, when it exercised dominion, is past, and a new epoch has begun, that of faith on Christ. Hence, also, those who in this new epoch are added to the people of God, through faith in Christ, that is, the Gentiles, are no longer to be held subject to the law, as though faith were not sufficient for salvation.But this is to be understood also more specially, in a subjective sense; the man who has attained to faith in Christ, is thereby no longer under the law, but may and ought to view himself as free therefrom, and to appropriate to himself the full consolation of Gods grace, and to oppose it to all accusations of the law.
2. The Law hat still its use, and must be preached among Christians. But if now from (c) it were inferred: The law then no longer concerns us, and ought not to be preached among Christians! this would be a false conclusion. A usus justificatorius, unquestionably, cannot be made of the law under any circumstances, and we must, with Paul, warn men against any such use; and to this extent the position of the Christian preacher, as respects the law, is a negative one. But such a usus, indeed, did not belong to the law in itself, according to its Divine intention (as Paul teaches us), even though it was actually so employed. What belonged to the law, was the usus pdagogicus, and that it has still, and so far it has a function even in this, the New Testament era. For although the epoch of the law as a historical preparation for redemption, ceased with the coming of Christ, and with that the epoch of faith began, yet in the individual the coming of faith is always at first inchoate, and in this respect it cannot be said that in the Christian era we simply admonish the soul to have faith in Christ, and lead it at once to the true source of justification. This may indeed take place, nor can it be disputed that there is such a thing as coming to faith in Christ at once. But its depth, its steadfastness, its true, full worth, this faith receives, now as ever, only through the service of the law. This must be held up before each man, and that distinctly and repeatedly, in order to bring him to the knowledge of his incapacity of fulfilling it, of the impossibility of attaining in this way to justification, and of the necessity of faith in Christ. Even the ceremonial part is applicable to this end, in order to make the value of its fulfilment in Christ the more plainly visible. Naturally, however, the specially ethical precepts come into the foreground. (That, in the application of the law within the Christian sphere, these latter, of the whole complex system of the Mosaic law, are most prominently in mind, and that, therefore, when we speak of the law as still having a use at the present time, the word is not to be taken in its full sense, is, of course, easily understood.)In this holding up of the law, in its usus pdagogicus, there is, it is true, only an analogon of what took place in the actual epoch of the law; for the subjection under the law is renewed, so to speak, only in an ideal way. At most, it may be said to him who will not be persuaded of the impossibility of being justified by works of law: then make trial of the law awhile! But on no one may the law be actually imposed, for the sake of having it do its work on him, to prepare him for faith; and no one ought to impose it on himself to this end. And as to the bondage under law of the Christian Church before the Reformation, we may. it is true, view in it a permissive Providence of God, and therefore something that was salutary, but we are bound to stigmatize the fact in itself as indicating an entire misconception of the true character of Christianity.Yet, if the law is to have its usus pdagogicus, an actual subjection under the law must take place, namely, through the medium of the conscience. Only where this law written in their hearts exercises its function (but not where there is a mere agitation of feeling or conviction of the intellect), is it possible for a vitally active faith to come into existence. Only for conscienti perterrefacl do the consolations of the grace of the gospel in reality exist. And these exactions and threatenings of the law in the conscience are in turn essentially enlarged, more clearly defined and intensified by the positive law of God, so that in this sense it amounts to a complete shutting up under the law. How long then this keeping in word, shut up, etc., is to last, how soon faith is to be revealed, and justification to be brought in, is reserved to Gods secret counsel, who in the history of His people alone knew when the time was fulfilled and who in the case of each soul also, alone knows it. To wish to continue shut up under the law would be perverse, for Christ is come, we must press through to Him, and in Him find consolation. But even when faith has been attained to, the temptation may come, to a retrogression under the law, which must therefore be overcome with all appropriate means of strengthening faith. In this case then we are to take a decidedly negative position with respect to the law, turning from it, suffering it not to terrify us, nor to expel Christ, and set Moses again in His place. Comp. also, on the whole subject, the admirable observations of Luther. below, in the Homiletical remarks. This no doubt is the usus, which the law even since Christs coming has retained. But this use manifests Christ more than ever as the kind of the law; the law is only meant to drive us to Him. But Christ is also the Fulfiller of the law. The question therefore arises, whether the law have not another usus also, for the Christian. Upon this see below, in the remarks upon Gal 5:15 sq.54
3. The significance and the blessing of Baptism. Upon the idea of the sons of God see Doctrinal Note 7, on the following Section. Those , are sons of God, who believe on Christ, the more certainly so because they have received Baptism, and therewith have been baptized unto Christ. For therewith they have put on Christ = have come into Christ = into Christs relation to God = into the relation of the sons of God. Two things are implied in this passage. (1) Baptism is only a putting on Christ, because joined with faith, it is therefore to be considered as such only when this connection really exists. That is: whoever positively does not believe on Christ, of him it. is true, even if he chance to have received baptism outwardly, that he has not put on Christ. (Indeed, his being baptized could hardly be called baptized into Christ.) On this ground, however, our practice of infant baptism remains legitimate. In the case of those, who do not yet believe when they are baptized, only because they are not yet capable of believing, but in whom there is just as little unbelief, or perverted faith in any thing else; in the case of children, who are brought by their believing parents to baptism, nothing certainly hinders us from assuming that they in fact put on Christ. Let us consider only what this means. Not, to become a new man (see above, in the Exeg. Notes), but in the first instance only to enter into the relation of children to God. For children certainly are not yet under the law, and are not placed under the law (and consequently slavish fear of the Divine wrath and curse is out of the question), but are consciously placed by their parents under the promise of God in Jesus Christ. And if any significance at all is to be attributed to the parental care in this behalf, it must be assumed that an actual transfer under the promise takes place, where no positive opposition can exist. They receive from God the adoption of children, although as yet they do not use or comprehend it, that is, God comes into the relation of a Father to them, and accepts them as His children in Christ Jesus, although as yet, they know it not. From this possession in fact, to the conscious use of it, those baptized then make the transition in the measure in which they themselves apprehend in faith the promise of God in Christ, and the most efficacious means for promoting this conscious apprehension in faith, is precisely the translation in fact into this relation to God, that has already taken place in baptism. What therefore with the adult, come to self-consciousness, is one act, namely, the communication of the blessing and the consciousness of having it, the translation into the adoption of children and the use and enjoyment of the same, is, with the child, divided. The possession is assured to it, in order that from the very beginning of self-consciousness, it may feel itself already in possession of the good, and may so much the more certainly make use of the same.55 And yetmore nearly regardedthe distinction is not even so great as this, for with the adult also, the possession in fact of the adoption of children (the putting on Christ) and the consciousness and enjoyment of itare two things by no means always coincident, but the latter is lacking only too often, from the weakness, nay, want of faith, that may intervene, and then the first, concern always is to apprehend the promises of God afresh in faith, or more exactly, by recalling to mind that we possess them in fact, to quicken anew faith, that is, the consciousness of the possession. (2) But it is to be observed, that on the other hand also, the power of effecting the putting on of Christ, and of making one a child of God is ascribed to faith only because it is joined with the being baptized into Christ, and therefore also, we may further conclude, can be ascribed only to it, when it is joined therewith. So then the candidates longing after faith inheres, as it were, in his baptism, and finds first through this its realization, so the converse is true: Faith not without Baptism! i. e., not merely that baptism must be added to faith, to perfect and to seal it, &c. but although a beginning of faith, more, however, in the nature of an inquiry of the heart after the salvation in Christ, than any thing more definite must precede baptism,faith itself comes to the certainty: I have salvation in Christ, that is, in fact, comes really to be faith, only upon the ground and in virtue of that acceptance of the individual on the part of God, and that giving of himself up to God, which takes place in the act of baptism. Only on the ground of baptism, therefore, does the actual putting on of Christ take place, and therewith the becoming a child of God. Unquestionably this is the blessing and the significance of baptism, that it would thus help us to faith, to certainty as to our personal state of grace in Christ, even though in special circumstances it is reserved to God to lead a man without baptism to the certainty of faith.
[Calvins remarks on Gal 3:27, present the middle ground of the Reformed Confession: It is customary with Paul to treat of the Sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truthwhich they represent. In this case he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.The sacraments retain undiminished their nature and force; they present both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they hold out of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament. With strict propriety, then, does Paul, in addressing believers, say, that when they were baptized, they put on Christ. In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot, be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions.R.]
4. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. In this sentence there are two truths expressed, complimentary to each other, respecting the faith of Christians: a. All are one, that is, the natural differences, relative antitheses, which exist among men, place no limitations in the way of Christian faith. No one is hindered, by nationality or rank or sex, nor even by his religious belief, from becoming a Christian. Christianity is destined for absolutely all; as certainly as it is the specifically Divine, God-revealed religion; so on the other hand, this character of universality shows it to be the genuinely human religion, the religion destined for mankind as such.Inasmuch as all can thus attain to faith in Christ, they can therewith, and this is the main thing, all attain also to the blessings contained therein, can all become Gods children, all become heirs of the heavenly kingdom.b. All, moreover, are also one in Christ. Inasmuch as the Christian faith embraces all, it also unites all, comprehends all in one great whole, and so first realizes in the full sense the idea of the unity of the human race, which by it is transformed into a great family of God. This it was meant to be, but is not of itself, not so much in consequence of the naturally established distinctions, as of the continual influence of (falsely uniting as well as) falsely sundering sin, to which so many false distinctions owe their first origin (as that of slaves and freemen), and which has given to those naturally existing a false tension, and turned them into sundering antagonisms.This implies at the same time, that Christianity, while it unquestionably does away all artificially established distinctions, does not level down natural ones, grounded in the Divine order of creation (such as sex, age, and also nationality), although it will have them divested of all harshness and false exaggeration (comp. also Anacker).
[The truth here set forth by the Apostle contains also the principle of true evangelical catholicity. As all are one, irrespective of the natural differences, relative antitheses, which previously existed; so all, who are in Christ Jesus are one, irrespective of the differences and antitheses, which remain after they become Christians. That through the influence of yet remaining sin, these antitheses become antagonisms, does not destroy the real unity, since all in Christ Jesus are at least tending towards assimilation to Him. This unity (or catholicity, as applied to the church) is something superior to external uniformity, whether of rite, order or mere theoretical creed. But, at the same time, it is something widely different from latitudinarianism. The latter has no positive basis, but this is the actual unity in Christ Jesus, the real catholicity of those who are one, not from outward constraint, or ecclesiastical regulations (however excellent), but from their position in Christ Jesus, which necessarily involves oneness of life from Him, with Him and in Him. Such a catholicity will lead neither to attempts to unite the visible church by means of external uniformity, nor to less earnest holding fast to the truth as it is in Jesus. In the Catholic Church, as thus constituted, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision (rites, polity, philosophic or speculative theology), but a new creature. Gal 6:15.R.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Gal 3:19. Luther:Even as it does not make sense for a man to say: Money maketh no one righteous, therefore it is worth nothing, just as little does it profit to say: The law maketh no one righteous, therefore is it a useless thing. But a man should so acquaint himself with the matter, as to attribute to each particular thing its own functions, that suiteth and appertaineth thereto. [Bunyan:He that is dark as touching the scope, intents and nature of the law, is also dark as to the scope, nature and glory of the gospel.R.]
Luther:See here most evidently the evil consequence of transgressions. On account of these God was constrained to change His countenance towards His people, and could no longer simply give promises of grace. A separation had ensued, and a mediator must intervene, who yet could only throw a bridge over, but could not do away the schism; the people were placed under a law, that commanded, and promised also, it is true, and yet the promises could not receive their fulfilment.Essentially this, even now, is always the result of transgressions. The law comes in, held up by the conscience, but this is only a mediator, which throws a bridge over, so that there is still a connection, but the separation cannot thus be taken away.Yet as it was true of the people collectively, so is it true of the individual, that the law came indeed because of transgressions, but only until the seed should come. It is to find its end when it has done its work; is then to yield again to the Divine grace in Christ. Christ also it is true was called a Mediator, for He also was to unite that which was severed. But He has really united it, and not merely thrown over a bridge. For He received from God and brought to the people not merely the law, but came for the peoples sin and transgression with His offering of Himself, and so removed the separation. Whereas when Moses interceded upon the Mount for his sinful people, his office of mediator approached, indeed, to that of Christ; but after the intercession, although it preserved the people from destruction, he still came back to them with new tables of the law, and with the glory on his countenance which the people feared, and which he must therefore hide. Entirely different is the glory of the new Covenant.
Gal 3:21. Spener:What God has ordained, is not at variance within itself, and therefore law and gospel are not at variance. Both agree together, But that we sometimes think they are contrary to one another, comes from our want of understanding. If we find therefore any two things in the Holy Scriptures that seem to contradict one another, we must yet believe otherwise concerning them, because both are spoken by God, and the defect is in us alone, that we cannot comprehend it.[John Brown:What a sad aptitude is there in our depraved nature to misapprehend the design of the gifts and works of God, and to pervert that to our destruction which was meant for our salvation, rendering such an exuberance of illustration necessary to prevent fatal mistake as to the purpose of the law.R]
Berlenb. Bible:The law cannot make living. It commands only: This shalt thou do, else thou art accursed. It does not give spiritual energies, hut presupposes them. It cannot, bring new Divine life into the dead heart of man. Therefore also it cannot justify. If it could do this, then would be extolled and revealed to man, not Gods grace, but rather men with their own power, merit, and work, which would be wholly opposite to the gospel, wherein God alone is recognized as righteous, but all men as false and powerless.
Gal 3:22. The Scripture does not acknowledge in man the ability to help himself. It is the revelation of the general ruin, of the dominion of sin, over all men, showing how it began with the fall of the first man, and has extended itself over the whole. There follows from this the necessity of a redemption. This testimony of Scripture, still continued, should persuade us also, of the impossibility of attaining through works, that is, through our own strength, to justification, and of the necessity of entering, for that purpose, upon the way of faith. If the Scripture has shut up all under sin, it is an idle fancy, if thou thinkest thou canst nevertheless, in contradiction thereto, fulfil the law.That the promise etc. Blessed purpose of the terrifying judgment: God would thereby only close up the false way, and therewith, as it were, procure Himself space for the redemption through Christ, and thus for the manifestation of His free grace agreeably to the covenant of promise.
Gal 3:23. Luther:The law is a prison, both bodily and spiritually. Bodily, it guards the ungodly outwardly, and restrains them so that they may not according to their will and pleasure practice all manner of villainy without fear. Then it shows us also spiritually our sin, terrifies and humbles us, in order that, when it has so terrified us, we may recognize our misery and perdition. And this is its true work or office, which it is appointed to discharge in us; yet so that it endure not forever.The law with its custody is meant to serve our best good, namely, that when we are terrified thereby, grace and the forgiveness of sins may become to us so much the sweeter and more amiable, such as man can attain to by no works, but only through faith.Whoever now is so well skilled, that in time of temptation he can bring together these two things, which are yet else of all things most opposite to one another, that is, whoever knows, when the law terrifies him most vehemently, that then the end of the law is at hand, and also the beginning of grace and faith, such a one knows rightly how to use the law. Know thou, that the law slays thee to this end, that thou mayest, through Christ, be made truly alive?What has happened historically, at a certain point of time, since Christ has come, has done away the law, and brought freedom to light; the same happens day by day, spiritually, in every Christian man. For in such a one the matter is wont to take such a course, that now the time of law and the time of grace, ever one after the other, has room and place.The law has its time, when it urges him, torments and plagues him, and brings him to feel his sin and acknowledge its greatness, to be afraid of death and Gods judgment. And when it does this, it accomplishes its fitting and becoming work, which a Christian, while he yet lives in the flesh, feels more and oftener than he would fain feel it. But the time of grace is, when the heart, through the promise of Divine grace, is again helped up, so that it gains confidence through Christ towards God, and says: Why then art thou cast down, O my soul, and why art thou disquieted in me? Seest thou then nothing at all than merely law, sin, terror, mournfulness, despair, death, hell and the devil? Is there not also such a thing as grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, consolation, joy, peace, life, the kingdom of Heaven, God and Christ? We should with diligence learn to distinguish both manner of times, not with words only, but also in the heart, wherein they have their working. But this is above all things difficult. For although these two times, of law and grace, are widely different from each other, as concerns their unlike working, yet are they of all things most closely Joined together, namely, in one heart. Yea, no one thing is to another so near as fear and faith, law and gospel, sin and grace. For so near are they to one another, that one consumes away and devours the other.The law is abused, first, by all such as set their holiness in works, and indulge themselves in such dreams as that men can be made righteous by the law.The law, secondly, is also abused by those that would set Christians wholly free therefrom, as the enthusiasts essayed to do, and who dream that Christian freedom is such a freedom us that every one, after his own pleasure and presumptuous mind, may do what he will.The law is abused, thirdly, by those that are terrified thereby, and yet understand not, that such terror should not endure longer than until they reach Christ. These, through such abuse of the law finally fall into despair, even as hypocrites by their abuse of the law, become proud and presumptuous. On the contrary, one can never highly enough estimate and value, what a dear, precious, and excellent thing it is to have the law, when it is rightly used.[Such wrong use of the law is made by those who, appointed to lead children to Christ, continually din in their cars such false doctrine, such old legalism, as this: My child, be good, do thus and so, or God will not love you. What wonder when parents and teachers make the first wrong use of the law above referred to, that the little ones, whom a better training would speedily bring to Jesus, waiting to receive them, make the third wrong use of the law, and are terrified by it. Forbid them not thus! Parents do not stand in the place of the law as a schoolmaster, but, as it were, in the place of God, the Father.R.]
Gal 3:24. [Burkitt:Moses and the law is a rigid and severe schoolmaster, who by whips and threats requires an hard lesson of his scholars, whether able to learn it or not; but Christ and the gospel, is a mild and gentle teacher, who by sweet promises and good rewards, invite their scholars to duty, and guide and help them to do what of themselves they cannot do; by which means they love both their Master and their lesson, and rejoice when it is nearest to them to direct them in their studiesR.]
Luther:If the law is done away, we are never henceforth under its tyranny, but are under Christ, and live in all security and joy, through Him who now reigns in us mildly and graciously by His Spirit. Therefore, if we could rightly apprehend Christ, the dear Saviour, this severe and wrathful schoolmaster would not dare to touch a hair of our heads. From this it follows, that believers, as concerns the conscience, are by all means free from the law; on this account the schoolmaster [Zuchtmeister] should not rule therein, i. e., he should not affright, threaten, or take the conscience captive, and though he should undertake it, the conscience should not care for it, but should behold Christ on the cross, who through His death had freed us from the law and all its terrors. Nevertheless there is sin still remaining in the saints, whereby their conscience is accused and plagued. Yet Christ helps it up again through His daily, yea, continual drawing near. For like as Christ, when the time was fulfilled, came once upon earth, that He might redeem us from the insupportable burden and power of our schoolmaster, even so does He come every day, yea, every hour, to us spiritually, that we may grow and increase in faith and the knowledge of Him, and that the conscience may from day to day better and more certainly apprehend Him, and on the other hand, that the law of the flesh and of sin, the fear of death, and terror before Gods wrath and judgment, and whatever else my unhappiness is, that the law is wont to bring with it, may continually grow weaker and weaker, and diminish more and more.
Gal 3:26. [Calvin:It would not be enough to say that we are no longer children, unless it were added that we are freemen; for in slaves age makes no alteration. The fact of our being children of God proves our freedom.R.]In Starke:Even among Gods children are many found that still are burdened with many weaknesses, as is witnessed by the example of the Galatians.
Gal 3:27. Luther:To put on Christ according to the gospel, means not, to put on the law and its righteousness, but means, by baptism to receive the unspeakable treasure, namely, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, peace, comfort, joy in the Holy Ghost, blessedness, life and Christ Himself with all that He is and has.Starke:The putting on of anything is such a union with that which we put on, that it becomes quite our own, that we therewith cover our nakedness, adorn ourselves, yea, it may even be, are superbly attired. Considering this matter, we may remember how our first parents, before their fall, needed no clothes to cover their nakedness, but after the fall sought them idly in fig-leaves, as an image of their own righteousness, in the place of which God made them other clothes of skins, as an image of the righteousness of Christ; for this is our beautiful garment, because it covers our nakedness, and protects us against the wrath of God, and adorns our soul.O exceeding benefit, that we were baptized into the name of Jesus, even in our childhood ! The remembrance of our baptism should be to us a continual assurance of participation in Christ and the kingdom of God; but not the less also give to us a continual impulse to all the faithfulness which the covenant of grace requires.Believing Christians have in their daily putting on of apparel, especially when they put on new and clean garments, a beautiful figure, whereby they should bethink themselves, partly for comfort, of their legitimate nobility in Christ, partly of their bounded duty towards Him.
Gal 3:28. [Burkitt:Now since the coming of Christ there is no difference or discrimination between one nation and another, no regard to any national privilege, either of Jew or Gentile, no distinction of conditions either bond or free; or of sexes, cither male or female; but circumcised or uncircumcised, we are all, one as good as another, in respect of outward privileges, or external advantages; but being sincere believers, we are all equally accepted of God in Christ. No external privilege or prerogative whatsoever, without faith in Christ, is any whit available to salvation; none are debarred from Christ, nor more nor better accepted with Him for any of these things.R.]Luther:For ye all are one in Christ Jesus. These are great and admirable words. Before the world and according to the order of the law, there is a very great distinction of persons, which should be most diligently maintained. For if the wife in the family would be husband, the son father, the scholar master, the servant lord, the subject ruler, what would come of it all? Truly a wild confusion, so that no one could know which was which.56 But because Christs kingdom is not a kingdom of the law, but of grace, there is also no distinction of persons therein. The Christ whom St. Peter and St. Paul, together with all the saints, have had, even the same I, thou, and all believers, also have, the same have all baptized children also. Therefore a Christianly believing conscience knows nothing at all of the law, but looks alone upon Christ, through whom it comes to the unspeakable glory of being Gods child.Lange:If all men are one in Christ, as respects the Divine benefits or blessings of salvation, so no less do the rules of life given, and the duties inculcated by Christ, apply to all, so that no one may except himself.
Gal 3:29. Starke:The seed of Abraham is Christ with all His Christians, who cleave to Him in faith. He the Head, they as His members; He as the One through whom the blessing comes; they as His associates. Intimate and glorious union!
On Gal 3:15-22. (The Epistle for the 13th Sunday after Trinity.) Heubner:The covenant of God with Abraham an everlasting covenant with the good. 1. Establishment, character of the same in itself: a) it is truly Divine, inviolable (Gal 3:15) and b) had reference as to its contents to all men and their redemption through Christ. 2. The continuance of the same even under the law (Gal 3:17-20): a) The law cannot abrogate the covenant of grace (Gal 3:17-18). b) On the other hand the law is meant as a dispensation on account of sin to prepare the way for the perfect dispensation of the covenant (Gal 3:19-20). 3. The perfecting of the same by Christianity: a) necessity of this covenant even according to the law (Gal 3:21), b) the condition of the same is faith in Christ (Gal 3:22).The false and the right use of the law.The dispensations of God for the salvation of men: Abraham, Moses, Christ. (The three stages of the economy of Salvation in their relation to each other.)The unity of God with all the external difference of his revealed dispensations.The one purpose of all the institutions of salvation.Christ the consummation of all revelations.Genzken: Promise and law: (1) Both given by God, (2) have both one divine purpose.Westermeier: The testament of our God: (1) its excellence, (2) its irrepealableness.Joh. Chr. Starr: The use of the gospel for our salvation: whoever uses the same aright, regards it as a Testament, a) to which he adds nothing, because it is Gods Testament (Gal 3:15 sq.), b) as a testament confirmed by the death of Christ (Gal 3:17), c) as a free irrevocable gift of grace (Gal 3:18-20), d) in which alone righteousness and life are to be sought.In Lisco: The purpose of the law : (1) what it is not, (2) what it is.Gods covenant of promise an unchangeable one=not abrogated by the law: (1) the law might not abrogate it, because it had long before been established (Gal 3:15-18); (2) could not abrogate it, because it could not replace it = could not help to justification (Gal 3:21-22).
Gal 3:23-29. (Epistle for New Years Day.)57 Heubner: The happiest entrance into the new year: (1) When we grow out of sin and the laws constraint and through faith become children of God (Gal 3:23). (2) When We begin a new life after Christs example, and become united in love (Gal 3:27-28). (3) When we keep in mind the hope of one day celebrating in Heaven the eternal year of jubileeThe free, courageous mind with which the Christian enters upon the new year.Westermeier: The precious New-years gifts out of Gods word, which this epistle offers: (1) Golden freedom; (2) A high rank; (3) A beautiful garment; (4) Peace and unity; (5) The best hopes for the future.In Lisco: At the entrance upon a new year how important for all believers is the certainty that we are Gods children.Schazzer:How happy our life in the new year will be, when it is a life in the new covenant! (1) What means it: to live in the new covenant? a) not to live without God; b) nor as in the old covenant =under the law; c) it means: life in the faith of the Son of Godin the adoption of Gods childrenin communion also with all the children of God. (2) Such a life is happy; for (a) it takes from us what makes us wretched: love of the world and the servile mind; (b) it gives us what makes us truly happy: the joyfulness of faith, the filial feeling, the blessing of Christian communion; (c) it promises us eternal life.The blessing of being children of God consists (1) in the inward fear; (2) in the brotherly union; (3) in the promised inheritance.
Conard: We are Gods children: (1) this ought to give us repose; (2) impel us to holiness; (3) fill us with blessed hope.Harless: Freedom in Christ: (1) freedom out of Christ; (2) actual slavery out of Christ; (3) the law and freedom in Christ.
Gal 3:19-29. How is the law related to the covenant of promise? (1) It is essentially distinct therefrom, Gal 3:19-20; (2) yet it is not in conflict with it, for it does not aim to justify (Gal 3:21-22); (3) it is on the other hand advantageous for it, Gal 3:23-24; (4) it must however recede before it (Gal 3:25 sq.)Christ, (1) the laws honor=this is the laws honor, that it points to Christ; (2) the laws end.The law points to Christ, but also ends in Christ [1, historically, 2, ethically].Justification before God (1) comes into effect not without the law, (2) yet not through the law. Or (1) only through faith in Christ, (2) yet not without the law.
[Gal 3:27; Gal 3:29.Chrysostom (in Turner):Thus we say, with regard to friends, such a one has put on such a one, when we mean to describe great love and increasing harmony and union. For he who has clothed himself appears to be that with which he is clothed. Let Christ, therefore, always appear in us.Augustine:We having put on Christ are all Abrahams seed in Him, and we are Christs members; we are one man in Him.R.]
[Gal 3:26-28. True freedom in Christ, hence true equality and true unity! How often are they sought by the world and even by the Church in some other way!R.]
Of Gal 3:21-29 each one is suited to immediate homiletical application. Special suggestions are not needed.
Footnotes:
[33]Gal 3:19.[The E. V. is sufficiently accurate. Ellicott renders what then is the object of the law ? Schmoller: Wie verhlt es sick mit dem Gesetz?R.]
[34]Gal 3:19.Griesbach and Scholz hare , which is not sufficiently supported. [So Rec., but is adopted by most modern editors.The article should be retained with transgressions in the E. V. So Ellicott, Alford.R]
[35]Gal 3:19.Instead of , J. and many cursive, some Fathers also, have ; but this is poorly supported, probably arising from the fact that was not understood.
[36]Gal 3:19.[The italics in the E. V. separate too much from the first clause, with which it is closely connected.By means of brings out the purely instrumental force of .R.]
[37]Gal 3:21. , bracketted by Lachmann. The omission is not well sustained. . retains it. [B. is the main authority for rejecting it. Meyer rejects it mainly on exegetical grounds.R.]
[38]Gal 3:21. . [Rec.] There are different variations: . has , the best attested order is . [So A. B. C., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, critical editors generally.R.]
[39]Gal 3:22.[The strongly adversative requires the insertion of on the contrary (Alford, Ellicott).R.]
[40]Gal 3:22.(As the E. V. renders the same verb () Gal 3:23, shut up, it is substituted here as less ambiguous than hath concluded.R.]
[41]Gal 3:23. is in all probability the correct readingnot . Yet . has it [ (sic.) The perfect of the Rec. is adopted by Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, Wordsworth. Ellicott (on critical and exegetical grounds). Lachmann. Scholz, Alford, Lightfoot, adopt the other. The order is changed; under the law seems to be best joined with shut up.R.]
[42]Gal 3:24.[So that the law hath become Is more literal. Schoolmaster is retained, Since we have-no better word with which to translate . Tutor (Alford) is no more exact.To bring us is better omitted, since it presents but one side of the meaning.R.]
[43]Gal 3:25.[Now brings out the idea that it it so.R.]
[44]Gal 3:27.[The aorist verbs in this verse are better translated by the simple past tense of the English.R.]
[45]Gal 3:28.[The change of particles in Greek with this last pair is thus noted. On its peculiar force see Exeg. Notes.R.]
[46]Gal 3:28. . A. has I. But would easily be overlooked after the preceding , and then .. was first followed by as a gloss, from the beginning of Gal 3:29, and afterwards supplanted by it. The reading instead of is an explanation. Meyer. . has , but is marked doubtful [marked for erasure; the marks afterwards removed, .3 reading as RecIt is doubtful whether we should read or . . has the latter.R.]
[47]Gal 3:29. is omitted in good MSS., including ., by some versions and Fathers, but may very easily have been overlooked, as it follows (Meyer). It is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Scholz, [also by Meyer in 4th. ed., Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, on the authority of . A. B. C. D. As Schmoller follows Meyer in retaining it, it may be rejected here on the same authority.R.]
[48][John Brown: The existence of a mediator is certainly no proof that a dispensation is not a dispensation of mercy, for the new covenant has a mediator. But the facts connected with the law being given by the hand of Moses as a mediator, plainly show that the law was not, in its literal meaning and direct object, a revelation of the way of obtaining the Divine favor.R.]
[49][See Turner in loco. to whose valuable remarks I am indebted for the discovery that this view is not a new one.R.]
[50][Calvin, Bengel, Alford. Jowett are disposed to give this a wider meaning: omnia humana, everything which men are, possess or can accomplish, But or this there is no indication in the context, the neuter being chosen because men are here regarded as a collective whole (Meyer).R.]
[51][As Schmoller omits any detailed reference to the word , Alfords note may well be inserted here: The was a faithful slave, entrusted with the care of the boy from his tender years till puberty, to keep him from evil physical and moral, and accompany him to his amusements and studies. The E. V. schoolmaster does not express the meaning fully; but it disturbs the sense less than those have done, who have selected one portion only of the pedagogues duty and understood by it, the slave who leads the child to the house of the schoolmaster, thus making Christ the schoolmaster, which is inconsistent with the imagery. So Lightfoot: This tempting explanation ought probably to be abandoned. Even if this sense did not require or , the context is unfavorable to it. There is no reference here to our Lord as a teacher. Christ represents the freedom of mature age, for which the constraints of childhood are a preparation. Comp. Eph 4:13.R.]
[52][In Gal 3:25, the article is omitted before , as if to imply, under any schoolmaster, unter Pdagogengewalt (Meyer). Still as meyer himself suggests, the emphasis must be laid on. , sons of God; therefore not in the old pedagogic bondage.R.]
[53][Alford says Observe here how boldly and broadly St. Paul asserts the effect of Baptism on all the baptized. Wordsworth also at some length presses the objective grace of this rite. But surely there is as much and more reason for pressing by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26). Clearly the primary truth is ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus; the thought of Gal 3:27 is secondary. Where there is baptism and no sonship by faith, the question is an open one, as far as this passage is concerned, whether there has been any such effect of baptism. See Doctrinal Notes, 3.R.]
[54] [This third use of the law, viz.: as a guide to duty, is denied by Schmoller in form, but not in fact. That we must have a guide to our new life is evident enough. The only dispute is, as to whether we shall call it a law or not. Paul certainly does so in Gal 5:14, Gal 6:2. And when this New Testament guide to duty is compared with the ethical precepts of the Mosaic law, it is found to be nothing else than the Decalogue itself, as Christ interpreted it, and as it was from the first designed to be understood. Compare the position of the law in the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism, of Thankfulness, especially Questions 90, 91, 115.R.]
[55] [Although any wider discussion of the subject of infant baptism would be inappropriate in this place, yet it must be added that any consistent pedo-baptist view must admit as much as Schmoller maintains here. The practice, however cherished from custom or superstition, must inevitably fall into disuse (where there is no law compelling it), unless parents and children are brought to look at it in this light. Undoubtedly to my mind, it were better that it should fall into disuse, than be a mere public naming of a child, without any such delightful reality in it, as is here held. Of its efficacy as a means for promoting the conscious apprehension of the promise of God in Christ, in after years, instances are still occurring, despite the prominence of spasmodic over educational Christianity in these days.R.]
[56][Dass Niemand wsste wer Koch oder Keller wre.]
[57][In the Lutheran church, etc., not in the church of England.R.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
DISCOURSE: 2063
THE USES OF THE LAW
Gal 3:19. Wherefore the serveth the law?
PERHAPS, of all the subjects connected with religion, there is not one so rarely unfolded to Christian auditories as the law. We are ready to suppose, either that men are sufficiently acquainted with it; or that it is antiquated, and unnecessary to be known. But the law lies at the foundation of all true religion; and it ought to be studied, in the first place, as alone opening the way to the true knowledge of the Gospel. The mistakes which obtain in reference to it are very numerous. In truth, there are but few persons who have just views respecting it: and, on that account, I propose to call your attention to it throughout this series of discourses. I am aware, that persons deeply impressed with any particular subject are apt to magnify its importance beyond due bounds: and, being aware of this, I will endeavour to avoid that error on the present occasion. But I feel that it is scarcely possible to speak too strongly respecting the importance of the law. Those, indeed, who have never considered it, will possibly be somewhat staggered at the positions which I shall be necessitated to maintain in this my introductory discourse: and the rather, because the full proof of my assertions must, of necessity, be deferred to those discourses wherein the several parts will be more largely considered. But should this impression be unfortunately made on any of my hearers, I must request that their ultimate decision be suspended, till the subject has undergone the proposed investigation. As for those who are conversant with the subject, I have no fear but that they will go along with me in my statement, and concur with me in the sentiments which shall be submitted to them.
In the epistle before us, the Apostle Paul is maintaining a controversy with the Judaizing teachers; who wished to combine the Law with the Gospel, as a joint ground of hope before God. In order to rectify their views, he shews, that, if they would make their works, whether ceremonial or moral, in any degree the ground of their hopes, they must stand altogether on the footing of the law, which prescribed perfect obedience as the way to life; and must renounce all interest in the covenant which was made with their father Abraham, and which promised life to men by believing in the Promised Seed. Upon this, they naturally ask, Wherefore, then, serveth the law? that is, If we are not to be saved by the law, for what end did Moses give us the law? What end can it answer?
Now, to this inquiry I purpose to address myself. My first point will be, to shew the incalculable importance of the inquiry itself; and then, in my future discourses, to give what I conceive to be the true answer to it.
To mark the vast importance of the inquiry will sufficiently occupy us at this time. But, really, I scarcely know in what terms to state it, if indeed I would state it with becoming fidelity. I have already said, that the knowledge of the law is at the foundation of all true religion: and I hope to convince all who will candidly investigate the subject, that without a clear, distinct knowledge of the law we can have no just sentiments, no proper feelings, no scriptural hopes. And, whilst I attempt this arduous discussion, may Almighty God pour out upon us his Holy Spirit, to give to every one of us the seeing eye, the hearing ear, the understanding heart, and ultimately to guide our feet into the way of peace!
First, then, let me say, that without a distinct knowledge of the law we can have no just sentiments.Of course, I confine this, and all my observations, to religion; for of things that are merely civil or moral it is beside my purpose to speak at all. And I wish this to be borne in mind, throughout my whole discourse: for otherwise I shall appear to run into a very erroneous excess.
It must be remembered, that I speak only of the moral law; as I shall shew more fully in my next discourse. For with the ceremonial law there is no such connexion as I am about to trace, nor any necessary reference to it in my text.
I say, then, that without a distinct knowledge of the moral law we can have no just sentiments respecting God and his perfections, or Christ and his offices, or the Holy Spirit and his operations.
Let us proceed to illustrate this.
It will be readily acknowledged, that the holiness of the Deity is, and must be, marked in the law, which he has given for the government of his rational creation: and, if we suppose that law to be a perfect transcript of his mind and will; if we suppose it to extend to every action, word, and thought, and to require, that in the habit of our minds we shall retain all that purity in which we were originally created, and preserve to our latest hour Gods perfect image upon our souls; if it admit not of the slightest possible deviation or defect, no, not even through ignorance or inadvertence; if it promise nothing to us but after a spotless adherence to its utmost demands from first to last; it will, of course, be seen that he is indeed a holy Being, that cannot look upon iniquity without the utmost abhorrence. But, if we suppose his law to require any thing less than this, and to admit of any thing short of absolute perfection, we must, of necessity, conceive of him as less abhorrent of sin, in proportion to the degree in which he lowers his own demands, and in which he leaves us at liberty to depart from this high standard, the standard which he proposed to man in Paradise, and which he still ordains for the angels that are around his throne.
In like manner, if we suppose that the sanctions with which he enforces his law are strong and awful; if we suppose that they involve nothing less than the everlasting happiness or misery of every child of man; if we suppose that one single defect, of whatever kind, forfeits all title to happiness, and involves the soul in irremediable guilt and misery; if we suppose that these sanctions can never be set aside, never mitigated, never cease to operate through all eternity; we shall, of necessity, have a high idea of Gods justice, which will never relax the smallest atom of its demands, either in reference to the obedience of man, or the execution of the threatenings denounced against him. But, if we have an idea that God will overlook some slighter imperfections, or punish them only for a time, and that too in a way which may be found supportable by feeble man; we, of course, proportionally lower our ideas of divine justice, and accommodate our views of it to the standard of human imperfection.
Respecting his mercy, also, we may make the same observations. If we suppose the guilt that man has contracted to be beyond all measure and conception great, and the judgments to which he is exposed to be commensurate with his deviations from Gods perfect law; if we suppose his sins to be more in number than the sands upon the sea shore; and every one of those sins to be deserving of Gods eternal wrath and indignation; then we shall indeed stand amazed at the mercy of God, who, instead of executing his threatened vengeance, has provided a remedy for the whole world; a remedy suited to their wants, and sufficient for their necessities; a remedy, whereby he may restore them to his favour, not only without compromising the honour of his other perfections, but to the everlasting advancement of them all. Yes, truly, with such views of his law, we shall magnify his mercy, that can pardon so much guilt, and relieve from so much misery, and exalt to glory such unworthy creatures. But, if we suppose mans offences to have been comparatively few, and his desert of vengeance to be comparatively light, who does not see that we reduce almost to nothing the mercy of our God, which has been so little needed, and which has effected for us so inconsiderable a deliverance? I think that there is nothing strained in this statement, nothing which must not approve itself to every candid mind: and I am the more concerned that this view should be clearly understood, because it will open the way for a just apprehension of what I have yet further to offer under this head.
I proceed then to observe, that, without a clear knowledge of the law we can have no just views of Christ and his offices. From whence arose a necessity for a Saviour? was it not because we were condemned by the law, and incapable either of atoning for our past sins, or of restoring ourselves to the Divine image? Now, suppose our guilt to have been exceeding great; and that every deviation from Gods perfect law brought upon us a curse, an everlasting curse, under the wrath of Almighty God: suppose, too, that the demands of law and justice could never be satisfied without the punishment of the offender, either in his own person, or in the person of an adequate surety; then, in exact proportion as you magnify our guilt and misery, you magnify the Saviour, who by the sacrifice of himself has restored us to the Divine favour: and in proportion as you diminish our necessities, you depreciate the value of his atonement. Again, conceive of the law as never satisfied without a perfect obedience to its commands, and as requiring every soul to possess, either in himself or in his surety, a righteousness commensurate with its highest demands; then will Christ be proportionably exalted, in that he has wrought out a righteousness for all who shall believe in him, and that, through his righteousness, a way of salvation is opened for every child of man. But reduce that righteousness to any lower standardsay, to sincere, but imperfect, obedience; your need of Christ for this end is proportionably reduced, and your obligation to him almost altogether cancelled.
But take a larger view of his offices: conceive of him as a Prophet, who is to instruct us; a Priest, that is to atone for us; a King, that is to rule over us: what comparative need is there of his instructions, if so defective a knowledge of his religion will suffice? What need of his sacrifice, if repentance and reformation can restore us to Gods favour? And what need of his government, if so little is to be effected in our behalf, either in a way of deliverance from sin, or in a way of effective renovation? The less that is required of man himself, the less must of necessity be required of his Surety: and, consequently, the whole work of Christ, whether for us or in us, must be reduced, in proportion as we reduce the demands of the law, and the necessities of man.
The same reasoning must be applied to the operations of the Holy Spirit: The less is required of us, the less there is for him to do within us. And hence it is, that many deny the necessity of his influences altogether, either for the illumination of our minds, or the sanctification of our souls. The truth is, that the whole denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of all the doctrines dependent on itthe doctrine of the atonement, of imputed righteousness, and of divine influencesmust be traced to this source. Men feel not their need of a Divine Saviour: they feel not the need of an Almighty Agent, to work in them the whole work of God. Hence their principles of theology are brought down to the low standard of the Pelagian, Arian, and Socinian hypotheses. Let but a person obtain a thorough insight into the spirituality of the law, he will see that their meagre systems can never supply his wants, never afford a remedy suited to his necessities. If any one less than God himself undertake to effect his salvation, he sees that he must inevitably perish: and, if he had none but a creature to rely upon, glad would he be to be permitted to take his portion under rocks and mountains.
Having established, I trust, the truth of my first position, namely, that without a knowledge of the law we can have no just sentiments; I proceed to shew, in the second place,
That neither can we have any proper feelings. Of course, I must make the same limitation as before, and be understood as speaking only of feelings so far as religion is concerned.
Without the knowledge of the law there can be no true humility. This is a matter of vast importance.What is humility? It is not a mere sense of our weakness as creatures, nor a general acknowledgment that we are sinners; but a deep and abiding consciousness of our guilty and undone state; a consciousness, that darkness itself is not more opposite to light, than we are to the pure and holy law of God. It is a sense of our utter alienation from God, yea, and of enmity against him; insomuch, that every imagination of the thoughts of our heart is only evil continually: it is such a sense of this as makes us really to lothe and abhor ourselves, and to repent before God in dust and ashes. This is that broken and contrite heart which God will not despise. But where do we find persons penetrated with this contrition, and smiting on their breasts, and crying for mercy as sinners deserving of Gods wrath and indignation? Or, if we saw one under such distressing apprehensions, who amongst us would not be ready to think that he carried matters to excess; and that, unless he had been guilty of some sins beyond what were commonly committed, he had no need for such excessive griefs and sorrows? It is well known that such penitents are few; and that such comforters, if indeed disgust did not preclude any attempt to administer comfort, would be found in every company we meet with. But to what is all this owing? It arises from mens ignorance of the law: they try not either themselves or others by so high a standard: and, being insensible of their departures from it, they see no cause for such humiliation on account of those departures. In fact, the very idea of such humility enters not into the mind of the natural man: and, copious as were the languages of Greece and Rome, they had no word whereby to express it. With the word which they used to express their idea of humility, they associated rather the notion of meanness, than of an exalted virtue: and, though all of us profess to admire humility as a grace, there is not in the universe a man, in his natural state, that either possesses or approves of it, according to its real import.
The same may be said of gratitude.What is gratitude, but a thankful sense of mercies received? A truly enlightened Christian will view himself as a poor bond-slave redeemed from sin and Satan, death and hell; redeemed, too, by the precious blood of our incarnate God. He will be altogether, in his own apprehension, a brand plucked out of the burning: an apostate fiend would not, in his estimation, be a greater monument of grace than he. Hence he blesses his redeeming God, and calls upon all that is within him to bless his holy name. But where do we find this transport? Where do we see persons oppressed under the weight of the obligations conferred upon them? Were we to behold a person so elevated with joy, or so depressed with a sense of his great unworthiness, the generality amongst us would call it extravagance, and perhaps ridicule it as the height of absurdity. To the generality, some faint acknowledgments are quite sufficient to express their sense of redeeming love. But how different is this from the feelings of those around the throne of God! They, angels as well as saints, are penetrated with the devoutest admiration of this stupendous mystery: the one, as viewing its transcendent excellency; the other, as themselves experiencing its richest benefits. They are all prostrating themselves before the throne of God. And wherefore is it that men are so cold and insensible? Is it not because they see not the depths from which they have been redeemed? Did they see in the glass of Gods law the depth of the misery from which they have been delivered, they would have far other thoughts of their Deliverer. But, having reduced to almost nothing their obligations to him, no wonder if their gratitude to him be proportionably weak and vapid.
Of holy zeal, also, I must say the same. Who feels it in any measure corresponding with what the Scriptures require at our hands? We are represented as being bought with a price; and therefore are called to glorify God with our body and our spirit, which are Gods. To a man sensible of his obligations, no service under heaven would appear too great. All that he can do for the Lord is nothing in his eyes: and all that he can suffer for the Lord is accounted light. His time, his talents, his property, his influence, his whole life, appear of no value, but as they may be made subservient to the advancement of the Divine glory. But how little of this is seen! and how little is it approved, when seen! What names are too harsh, whereby to stigmatize such a life as this? and how infinitely below this is the standard of those who value themselves upon their morality! To the same cause must this also be traced. In fact, humility, and gratitude, and zeal, must of necessity rise and fall together: and according as our views of the law are deep or superficial, will all of these evince themselves to accord or disagree with the standard proposed to us in the Gospel of Christ.
I come now, in the third place, to shew, that without the knowledge of the law we can have no scriptural hopes. The faith which alone justifies the soul, is that which brings us simply to the Lord Jesus Christ as our only hope and refuge. If we attempt, in any measure or degree, to blend with his merits any thing of our own, we make void all that he has done and suffered for us: Christ himself is from that moment become of no effect unto us. As far as respects us, his death is in vain. But who will exercise this faith? Who will condescend to accept salvation on such terms? Who will bear to renounce his good works in point of dependence on them, and to enter into heaven at the same gate with publicans and harlots? All this is too humiliating for our proud hearts: we will not endure it: we will have something of our own, whereof to boast. If we make not our own works the sole ground of our justification, we will rely on them in part: or, if we be brought to rely solely on the merits of Christ, and to seek salvation by faith alone, we will make our own goodness a warrant for believing in him. We cannot, we will not, suffer ourselves to be stript of all self-preference: we will not glory solely in the cross of Christ. And wherefore is all this reluctance to comply with the terms of the Gospel? It proceeds from our ignorance of the law. We see not, that our very best deeds stand in need of mercy, as much as our vilest sins. We see not, that the smallest defect entails a curse upon us, as truly as our most enormous transgression. When these things are clearly seen, all the difficulty vanishes; and we are contented to be saved altogether by grace. But, till we have obtained this knowledge of the law, nothing under heaven can prevail upon us to exercise faith with becoming simplicity.
As to an entire devotedness of heart to God, as his redeemed people, we shall be equally defective in that also. We shall be contented with a low standard of obedience, and never aspire after a perfect conformity to the Divine image. To walk altogether as Christ walked, will appear a bondage. To tread in the steps of the holy Apostles, will be regarded as being righteous over-much. To glory in the cross for Christs sake, and to rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame and death for him, will be thought fit only for Apostles, and a culpable excess in us. But nothing less than this will prove us sincere: nothing less than this will be an acceptable sacrifice unto the Lord. If we would be really Christs, we must live, not unto ourselves, but unto him who died for us, and rose again; purifying ourselves, even as he is pure; and being perfect, even as our Father which is in heaven is perfect. This, let it be remembered, is inseparable from a scriptural hope: and, inasmuch as nothing but a scriptural hope can constrain us to it, and nothing but the grace of Christ effect it in us, we must remain destitute of it: our ignorance of the law will keep us from Christ; and our want of union with Christ will keep us far lower in our attainments than the Gospel requires, and, consequently, destitute of the hope which the Gospel only can inspire.
I think enough has now been spoken to shew the importance of the inquiry in my text. I am sensible that many strong things have been spoken; and spoken, it may be thought, without sufficient proof: and I candidly acknowledge, that if I had not, in prospect, further opportunities of unfolding the subject, I would gladly have lowered, as far as Christian fidelity would have admitted of it, my statement. But my desire is, to impress your minds with the importance of the subject. I wish, if it may please God, to prepare the way for a careful and impartial investigation of it. I certainly do feel that it is not sufficiently considered by Christians in general; and that, in comparison of other subjects, it is very rarely discussed. And most assuredly do I know, that an ignorance of it is at the root of all those superficial views and statements, with which the Christian world rests satisfied. O, that it might please God to accompany our investigation of it with his Holy Spirit, and to bring home the subject with power to all our hearts! Certainly, if the representation which I have given of it be true, a more important subject cannot occupy our attention. And there is need of much candour in the consideration of it. I wish it to be weighed: I know, that, if not founded in truth, and supported by clear convincing argument, it can have no weight with the audience which I have the honour to address. But I know, at the same time, that if, in some respects, it appear strange, it will not therefore be discarded as unworthy of attention. From the experience of many years do I know, that statements proposed with modesty are in this place heard with candour: and God forbid that I should affect to dogmatize, where it becomes me to speak with deference and humility! Yet I cannot dissemble, that my whole soul goes along with the subject; because I believe that the salvation of all your souls depends upon your acceptance or rejection of the truths essentially connected with it. Let me desire, therefore, that all amongst you, who know what it is to have access to God in prayer, will aid me with their supplications for an out-pouring of his Holy Spirit upon us in all our future discussions. It is but a little time that I have to speak for the Lord, or you to hear. O, that all of us may so improve the present hour, that, in that great day, when we shall stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, we may be accepted of our God; and that I who speak, and you who hear, may rejoice together!
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
DISCOURSE: 2064
THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE LAW
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?
WE now enter upon the second part of our subject. We proposed to inquire into the use of the law. But, without entering distinctly into that point, we endeavoured to call your attention to it by an exposition of its vast importance. We were aware that we should anticipate much which would afterwards be brought forward; and that we should assume, for the present, some things, which, though partially proved, would remain to be afterwards more fully established. Yet we would hope that nothing was adduced without sufficient proof; and nothing asserted, which those who are at all acquainted with the subject would not readily concede. We think it highly probable, that in our subsequent discussions there may also be somewhat of repetition. If we were content to prosecute all the separate parts of the subject without pointing out their bearing upon the heart and conscience, we might easily keep them all distinct, without anticipating any thing, or repeating any thing. But you would, of course, wish me to discharge my high office with a due attention to your eternal interests: and, consequently, you will be prepared to allow me the liberty which is necessary to the attainment of this great object. Of course, I shall not trespass more in this respect than necessity shall require: but, if I be found to need your indulgence in this matter, you are now apprised of the reason of it, and will no doubt readily grant to me the liberty I request.
I am now about to answer the inquiry which I have instituted, and the importance of which I have already shewn. But, previous to my entering upon the distinct answer, there is one point which must, of necessity, be settled. You will ask me, Of what law are you speaking? Let me understand that first; for, otherwise, all that you shall speak about its use will be in vain! I am aware that this must be first clearly and distinctly stated. I was constrained, in my former discourse, to pass over this point; and to assume, that the Apostle was speaking of the moral law. But now, as I then gave you reason to expect, I will address myself to that consideration; and will shew,
First, what is that law which the Apostle spake of: and, secondly, what bearing this part of my subject has upon the question before us.
First, what is that law which the Apostle spake of, and respecting which he instituted his inquiry?
The word Law, in the New Testament, is used in several different senses. But as in this place it can mean only the law as given to Moses, it must, of necessity, mean the moral, or the ceremonial, or the judicial law; or a compound of them all together. But of the judicial law the Apostle makes no question. He is speaking of a law which appeared to stand in competition with the promise which had been made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before. But between the promise and the judicial law, which I may call the common law of the land, there could be no such competition: for the promise made to Abraham will be equally in force in every country under heaven, whatever be its code of laws, or the outward form of its administration. Of the ceremonial law he does speak; and that frequently: because it was to that that the Jews adhered with such inveterate pertinacity. But still, if we admit that to be included in the passage, it is only included as being that outward form which the Jews supposed to be inseparable from the moral law; and the performance of which they regarded as an obedience to the moral law. It is of the moral law chiefly, if not exclusively, that the Apostle speaks. The line of his argument is this: God promised to Abraham and his seed, life, by faith in the Messiah, who should spring from his loins. Four hundred and thirty years afterwards he gave to Moses a law of works, which were partly moral, and partly ceremonial. It may be asked, then; In publishing this law, did God intend to set aside the promise? No: he did not; and he could not: he could not, because the promise made to Abraham was made to him and to his believing seed, whether of Jews or Gentiles, to the end of the world: but the law given to Moses was given only to a small portion of Abrahams seed; and that only for a time: and, consequently, as no covenant can be annulled but by the consent of both the parties interested in it, and only one of those parties was present at the transaction on Mount Sinai, nothing that was done there could supersede what had been done with others four hundred and thirty years before. Then, it would be asked, For what end was this law given? The Apostle answers, It was given because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made; that is, it was given to shew to what an extent transgression had abounded; and how greatly they needed the Promised Seed, to recommend them to God. Instead of setting aside the promises, then, as a person unacquainted with its uses might be ready to suppose, it was intended rather to be subservient to them; by shewing to men, that, being condemned by the law, they must seek for life as a free gift of God, through faith in the Promised Seed.
Let it then be observed, that, if we admit the ceremonial law to be in part intended, it is only in part: it is only as shewing that works of every kind, whether ceremonial or moral, are equally excluded from the office of justifying the soul before God. This is the whole scope of the Apostles argument, whether in the Epistle to the Galatians, or in that to the Romans: and to say, that, though ceremonial works cannot justify us, moral works may, is to oppose the whole line of his argument throughout both the epistles, and to set it aside altogether. The great question in both is, Whether we are to be justified by works or by faith? And his whole argument, in both, goes to prove this one point, that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Note: Rom 10:4.]!
Further proofs of this point will be adduced in their proper place. What I have here stated is quite sufficient to establish the point proposed; namely, that the moral law is that chiefly respecting which the Apostles inquiry is instituted.
Now, then, let me say what I mean by the moral law. It is that law which was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator. It was the law of the ten commandments only that God wrote on tables of stone, or that was given to Moses at that time amidst the ministration of angels [Note: Compare Act 7:53. with Deu 5:22.]. All the ceremonial law was revealed to Moses afterwards, and in private, without any of the attendant pomp with which the moral law was given.
But what was this law? and in what light was it to be considered? It was the very law which was originally written upon the heart of man in Paradise; and which, having been effaced in a great measure by the fall, and altogether obliterated from the minds of men through forgetfulness, and the love of sin, needed now to be republished; in order that men might know how transgression had abounded; and how greatly they stood in need of that Promised Seed, whom God had before taught them to expect, and in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. It was intended to shew them on what terms life had been originally promised to man in Paradise; and on what terms alone it could give life to man. But, inasmuch as all had transgressed it, none could obtain life by it now; but all must seek for life in the way which God had provided, even by faith in the Promised Seed; to which way of salvation the law was now intended to shut them up.
Now, then, we come to shew the true nature of this law. We have shewn, that it is of the moral law that we are speaking: and to that we are more especially also directed in the words of my text. The Apostle says in my text, We know that the law is spiritual. Now, that is not true respecting either the judicial or ceremonial law: not of the judicial; for that was only a code of laws for the regulation of the state, just like any other code of laws that exists in any other state: nor of the ceremonial; for that the Apostle expressly calls, a law of a carnal commandment: and he represents it as consisting altogether of carnal ordinances [Note: Heb 7:16; Heb 9:10.]. We are arrived, therefore, at the point where we desired to come; namely, to shew the spirituality of this law: and this we will shew by an examination of it in all its parts.
The law, if we merely attend to the words in which it was promulgated, seems to refer only to external acts, whereas, in reality, it was intended to bind us to the performance of every thing connected with those acts, either in word or thought; and to prohibit every thing which could in any way, even by inclination or desire, prove an incentive to transgression. The duties of the first table did not merely forbid outward idolatry, such as the serving of gods of wood and stone; but the inward respect of the soul, as paid to any creature in comparison of the Creator. Nothing, either within us or without us, is to stand in competition with him. Nothing is to be made, in any respect or any degree, an object of our alliance. Our own wisdom, strength, righteousness, must be altogether renounced as objects of dependence; and God alone be acknowledged as the source of all good. So neither must we seek our happiness in any creature, except in entire subserviency to him. For though he has given us all things richly to enjoy, our enjoyment must be, not so much of the creature itself, as of God in it; that God may be to us our all in all. The reverence of his great name, and the observance of his Sabbaths, come in as component parts of the regard we are to shew towards him. They must not be limited to words or acts, but must extend to the entire habit of our souls: for, as I have said, the prohibition includes an injunction of all that is contrary to the thing prohibited. We must not only have no other gods besides him, but must love him with all the heart, and all the mind, and all the soul, and all the strength: and this frame of mind must pervade our every action, every word, every thought: and, inasmuch as every seventh day is set apart for him, the body, as well as the soul, must on that day be devoted to his service, not only according to the measure prescribed for other days, but exclusively, even as the soul itself.
If we come to the duties of the second table, we shall find them of equal extent, whether as commanding what is good, or as prohibiting what is evil. The fifth command enjoins all that can attach to us, as superiors, equals, or inferiors: it seems, indeed, to comprehend only one relation, and that of the inferior only: but it extends to every relation in which man can stand to his fellow-man; and to every possible expression of mutual love.
The sixth and seventh commandments seem extremely limited; but we are warranted to affirm that they extend as much to the dispositions of the soul as to the actions of the body. Our blessed Lord has explained them to us in his Sermon on the Mount. The Scribes and Pharisees had narrowed their import, and reduced them to mere bodily acts. But our Lord and Saviour shewed, that an angry thought was a transgression of the one, and an impure look a violation of the other. Exceeding thankful should we be for this infallible exposition of their meaning: for this throws the true light upon the whole; and serves as a clew, whereby to find our way through every commandment of the decalogue. If the letter of them only were to be taken, the great mass of us, I would hope, might congratulate ourselves as innocent in relation to them: but if an angry word, even to the saying to a brother, Raca, subjects us to the danger of hell-fire; and an impure look, even the looking on a woman to lust after her, is a commission of adultery with her in the heart; who has not need to humble himself before God, and to tremble for the judgment that awaits him?
The eighth and ninth commandments must be understood as reaching, in like manner, to every injury that may be done to our neighbours property or reputation; and to every act, or word, or thought, whereby either the one or the other may be endangered.
But the key to the whole is the tenth commandment. That, even in words, goes beyond the mere act, and prohibits the disposition of the mind. It was this which opened the eyes of the Apostle Paul, in reference to his state before God. Having been educated a Pharisee, he rested in the exposition which the Pharisees were wont to give of the commandments; and knowing that, according to their literal import, he was innocent, he thought himself, as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless. But, when he came to consider more attentively the tenth commandment, he knew not how to withstand it, or to justify himself any longer as one who had truly observed it. He perceived that an inordinate desire of any kind was an actual violation of it; and he was conscious, that though he had withstood any unlawful desires, he had not been free from the motions of them in his heart. Hence he was constrained to acknowledge, that he had transgressed the law, and was consequently condemned by it; and needed to cry to God for mercy, as much as the vilest sinner upon earth. Hear his own account of this matter: I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died: and the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death [Note: Rom 7:9-10.]. The law, as given to man in Paradise, was ordained to life; but as continued to man in his fallen state, it is invariably unto death; and every man upon the face of the whole earth is condemned by it.
Thus I have, as briefly as possible, marked the spirituality of the law: and sure I am, that all who consider it aright must subscribe to that saying of the Psalmist, I have seen an end of all perfection; but thy commandment is exceeding broad, far beyond the reach or comprehension of any finite intelligence [Note: Psa 119:96.].
Now, at the hazard of anticipating some future remarks, I propose to shew,
Secondly, What bearing this part of our subject has on the great question before us.
It will be remembered what that question is; namely, What are the uses of the moral law? And had I been content with amplifying my foregoing observations, I should have been under no necessity to trespass at all on the ground which we shall hereafter occupy. But it is not to the understanding alone that I would speak, but to the heart and conscience; humbly imploring of God to clothe his word with power, and to make it the means of everlasting salvation to every soul that hears it.
Now, who that has attended to the foregoing statement does not see, in the first place, What abundant grounds the best amongst us hare for deep humiliation before God.
I will readily admit, that, as to gross outward violations of this law, many amongst us may be blameless. But who amongst us has rendered unto God the honour due unto his name; loving him, serving him, glorifying him, as it became us? Who has despised every thing in comparison of him, and walked as in his immediate presence; reverencing every thing in proportion as it appeared to proceed from him, or to lead to him; and wholly devoting to him the Sabbath-day; and having, on that sacred day especially, the entire rest of his soul in him, as an earnest and foretaste of the eternal Sabbath? Who amongst us will venture to say, that he has so lived, not unto himself, but unto his God; doing his will on earth as it is done in heaven? Nay, who has come near this standard? Who has ever come up to it for so much as one day in his whole life? Again, if we look at the duties of the second table, wherein men are particularly ready to vaunt themselves as innocent, where is there one who has fulfilled all that is required of him, as a husband or wife, as a parent or child, as a master or servant, as a magistrate or subject? Were we to trace the line that is required in all the different relations, and compare our conduct with it, who must not acknowledge that his transgressions have been multiplied, even as the hairs of his head, and as the sands upon the sea-shore? If we come to the tempers and dispositions that we have exercised, and to the thoughts that we have harboured, and consider the interpretation which our Lord himself has put upon them, who amongst us must not blush to lift up his eyes unto heaven, and be ashamed and confounded in the presence of that God who searcheth the heart? We are not sufficiently observant of the desires which break not forth into outward acts: but God notes them all, and imputes them to us as transgressions of his holy law. But, in truth, if we look at our words and actions, we shall not find ourselves so blameless as we are ready to imagine. For, where our own interest has stood in competition with our neighbours, who has not felt a leaning to self? Who has, in all things, viewed his neighbours claims with the same impartiality that he would a competition between others, in which he had no interest? And, in speaking of our neighbour, especially if he have shewn himself adverse to us, who will venture to say that he has at all times evinced the same candour and charity as, in a change of circumstances, he should have judged due to him? We may not be conscious of having been under an undue influence in these matters: but, when we see how all are affected around us, we may be sure that we have felt the general contagion, and been but too deeply imbued with the spirit of infirmity that pervades our fallen nature. And what shall we say to the last command? If even the Apostle Paul was slain by that, who shall stand before it? Who must not acknowledge, that, times without number, he has been under the influence of irregular and inordinate desires? and who, under a sense of his guilt, must not put his hand on his mouth, and his mouth in the dust, crying, Unclean, unclean [Note: Lev 13:45. Lam 3:29.]?
Perhaps you will think that I have borne somewhat hard upon your consciences; and availed myself of the spirituality of the law to inflict, unnecessarily, a wound upon your minds. But the truth is, that I have spoken nothing yet in comparison of what I ought to speak, in order to do justice to my subject. Forgive me, then, if I proceed to put this matter in its true point of view.
To call to mind what we have done, or what we have left undone, will give us a very inadequate view of our sinfulness. If we would estimate ourselves aright, we must take the high standard of Gods holy law, and see how infinitely short of our duty we have come, in every act of our lives, and in every moment of our existence. We must not inquire merely, whether we have loved God at all; but how near we have come to what his law requires, and his perfections demand. We must trace the whole state of our souls from the beginning, and estimate it by this rule. We shall then see that our attainments have been as nothing, in comparison of our shortcomings and defects; literally, I say, as nothing. The poorest bankrupt that ever existed has paid as great a proportion of his debt as we have of our debt to God: yea, he is in a far higher state than we: for he, if he discharge nothing of his debt, adds nothing to it; but we have been augmenting our debt every day, every hour, every moment. The very best deeds of the best of men, whilst in their unconverted state, if weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, have been lighter than vanity; and if tried by the touchstone of Gods perfect law, have been no better than splendid sins; or, rather, they have been one continued accumulation of guilt and misery against the day of wrath. If we try ourselves only by the letter of the law, we shall see nothing of this: but if we enter into the spirit of it, and examine ourselves by that, there will be no terms too humiliating for us whereby to express our sinfulness and our desert of Gods wrath and indignation.
Permit me, then, to call you to this self-abasing state. Permit me to wrest out of your hands that delusive plea, that you have done no harm. I pray you to take judgment as your line, and righteousness as your plummet, and to judge of yourselves as God judgeth. It is by his judgment, and not by your own, that you must stand or fall: and his judgment will be according to truth.
Were the condemnation that awaits men to affect only this present life, we might be contented to leave them under their delusions. But we must shortly appear before the heart-searching God, to receive our final doom. Then the book of his remembrance, wherein all our actions, words, and thoughts, were written, will be opened; then will our own consciences also attest the truth of every accusation that shall be brought against us; and then, above all, shall we see the equity, both of the test whereby we shall be tried, and of the sentence that shall be pronounced against us. And then there will be no respect of persons with God. The learned and the dignified will stand on the same footing with the most illiterate peasant; or rather, will have a severer judgment, in proportion to the advantages which they have neglected to improve. The Lord grant that these considerations may be duly laid to heart; and that all of us, while yet the opportunity is afforded, may abase ourselves before God, with all humility of mind, and with that brokenness of heart which God will not despise!
I must not close this subject without observing, in the second place, What a folly it is ever to think of establishing a righteousness of our own by the works of the law.
If God required only an observance of the letter of his law, then indeed we might entertain a hope of this kind. Yet even then, when we reflected on the tenth commandment, we should see how vain and hopeless would be the attempt. But when we see that there is not so much as one commandment, either of the first or second table, which we have not violated, it seems a perfect infatuation to stand on the ground of our own righteousness. Persons, I know, have an idea that Christ has lowered the terms of the law, and brought down its demands to the standard of human infirmity. But where can they find any thing that sanctions such an idea as this? Which of the commands has the Lord Jesus lowered? The whole decalogue he has summed up in two commands, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thyself. Which of these two has he set aside? which has he dispensed with? or what measure of abatement has he made in either of them? If this law, before the coming of Christ, required too much, then was it not holy, or just, or good: if, on the contrary, it required only what was really due, then has Christ, if he has at all lowered its demands, robbed God of the obedience due to him, and become himself a minister and patron of sin.
I would speak with reverence on every subject wherein the Deity is concerned: but I must say, that God cannot reduce the demands of his own law: it would be to divest himself of his own glory, and to give liberty to man to violate the obligations which every rational creature must, of necessity, owe to his Creator. His law is as immutable as he himself is: it is a perfect transcript of his mind and will. With the exception of the Sabbath, which is a positive institution, and has no foundation but in the will of God, the law exists of necessity, and independent of any revelation of it whatever. It must, of necessity, be the duty of a creature to love and serve his Creator; and to love, in subordination to him, all the works of his intelligent creation. I must say, then, that this law is unalterable; and that, if any would obtain righteousness by it, they must obey it perfectly, from first to last: and as this is impossible, since we all are transgressors of it, the thought of obtaining righteousness by the law must be relinquished by every soul of man. We must, if ever we would be saved at all, look out for some other righteousness more commensurate with the demands of the law, and more consistent with the honour of the Lawgiver.
But here I must stop, because this would lead me to what must occupy a separate discourse. I conclude, therefore, with commending these thoughts to your attentive consideration; and with entreating, that you would seek to make yourselves acquainted with this all-important subject. The Apostle says, We know that, the law is spiritual: would to God that all of us could say the same! But, indeed, it is not generally known. On the contrary, a very general and lamentable ignorance of it prevails in the Christian world. Every one is desirous of moderating the demands of the law to his own standard. Every one is desirous of lessening his own criminality before God: and, to effect this, he lowers the standard whereby to try his obedience. But I pray you to settle it in your minds, as an indisputable fact, that the law is, and ever must remain, spiritual. Unless this be thoroughly understood, it will be impossible for you to go along with me in my future discourses: for how can you comprehend the uses of the law, if you know not what the law itself is? Indeed, if you get not a clear insight into this as the first step, I shall appear to you to be bringing forward things strange and unwarrantable. But let the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians be attentively read with this particular view; and I dare affirm, that the spirituality of the law will be found written in them as with a sun-beam: and, that once seen, you will be prepared to understand the uses of the law, as they shall be more fully developed in my future discourses. You will not then be ready to exclaim, as otherwise you possibly may, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? You will see that our future statements necessarily grow out of this: and you will find no difficulty in adopting that sentiment, which is the ultimate drift of my whole argument, namely, that if ever you be saved at all, you must renounce all dependence on your own righteousness, and must possess a righteousness corresponding with the utmost demands of the law, even that righteousness which the Lord Jesus Christ wrought out by his own obedience unto death, and which he confers on all his penitent and believing people.
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
DISCOURSE: 2065
THE FIRST USE OF THE LAW
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?
NOW we begin to enter fully on our subject. Not that we could have omitted our last statement: for it was necessary that the spirituality of the law should be fully known; since, without the knowledge of that, it is impossible for any man to understand the truths that are founded on it. But, having thus prepared the way, we may now state what we conceive to be the chief uses of the law; namely,
1.
As a monitor, to guard us against adhering to the first covenant.
2.
As an instructor, to guide us to a better covenant.
3.
As a rule to govern us, when we have laid hold on that better covenant.
These three uses will form the subject of our present and two future Discourses.
At this time, I am to shew, that the law is intended as a monitor, to guard us against adhering to the former covenant.
The law was originally given to man in Paradise, as a covenant between God and him. It was not, indeed, written in a book; but it was written on his heart. The terms of it were, that man was to obey whatever God should command; and then both he and his posterity should live. But if he transgressed in any particular, he and all his posterity should die. This, indeed, is but obscurely intimated in the history of mans creation. It was there said to him, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. It is, however, most fully opened in the New Testament. There it is said, By one mans disobedience many were made sinners: and again, By the offence of one, many died; and judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Now it is a plain indisputable fact, that death came upon all men from the very moment that Adam sinned: it has come, not on those only who have sinned like him, but on millions who never have committed actual sin; whose sufferings, therefore, must have been the punishment of his transgression. If sin had not been imputed to infants, they could never have been called to bear the penalty of sin. But they do pay that penalty even from the womb; and therefore it is manifest that they are considered as having fallen in Adam, and as being in some way chargeable with his transgression. That is the covenant, under which every child of man is born into the world. The terms of the covenant having been forgotten, God was pleased to publish it by Moses, and with his own hand to write it upon tables of stone. The obligations of it were stated in the Ten Commandments: and the sanctions of it were added, Do this, and live: Transgress, and die.
It is true, that to Israel in the Wilderness it was published in somewhat of a mitigated form: because it was introduced by that gracious declaration, I am the Lord thy God. But still the terrors, with which the publication of it was accompanied, shewed, that it was a fiery law, a ministration of death, a ministration of condemnation. It is from St. Pauls reasonings chiefly, that we gain a clear insight into it. Though published in the form of a covenant, it is not really intended to be a covenant of life to man, now in his fallen state: it is intended only to shew him what this covenant is which he is under, and how impossible it is for him to obtain salvation by it. This will appear clearly, if we attend to its requirements and its sanctions, as they are expressed in my text: Do this, is the command given: Do it all; all without exception: continue to do it from first to last. On these terms you shall live. But a curse awaits you, even an everlasting curse, if you violate it in any one particular. Plead what you will, its denunciations are inflexible, irreversible. I wish to obey it. Tell me not of your wishes; but do it.I have endeavoured to obey it. Tell me not of your endeavours: but do it; or else you are cursed.I have done it in almost every particular. Tell me not of what you have done almost: have you obeyed it altogether? have you obeyed it in all things? If not, you are cursed.I have for a great number of years obeyed it; and but once only, through inadvertence, transgressed it. Then you are cursed. If you have offended in one point, you are, as St. James informs you, guilty of all [Note: Jam 2:10.]. If you have not continued to obey it from the first moment of your existence to the last, you are cursed.But I am sorry for my transgression. I know nothing of your sorrows: you are cursed.But I will reform; and never transgress again. I know nothing of your reformation: you are cursed.But I will obey it perfectly in future. I know nothing of what you may do in future: you are cursed. I cannot alter my terms for any one. My declaration to all, without exception, is, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. If you have risen to these terms, I will give you life: if you have fallen short of them, in any one particular, nothing remains for you but everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. [Note: The reason of this being written in the form of a dialogue is assigned in the next Discourse, p. 118 (Note). In Rom 10:5-10. St. Paul, writing on the same subject, uses somewhat of the same form. The precise mode of abrupt dialogue is also used, at some length, in Rom 3:1-8.] This, let it be observed, is no inference of mine; but the deduction of the Apostle Paul: for he says, As many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. And on what does he ground this sweeping sentence of condemnation? He grounds it on the declaration of the law itself: As many as, &c. &c. For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. There is no human being that ever has obeyed the law thus perfectly: and therefore all, without exception, are obnoxious to the curse; and all, who are yet looking to the law for justification, are actually under the curse; and must, if they die in their present state, endure it for evermore.
Such, then, are the terms of the covenant, even of that covenant under which we all are born.
Now let us see how the law, as a monitor, guards us against adhering to this covenant.
It opens to us what that obedience is which the covenant requires. It shews us it, indeed, chiefly in prohibitions, and in prohibitions of gross overt acts: and, if it included no more than these acts, it would rather encourage us to cleave to that covenant, and to hope for salvation by it. But, as I shewed in my last, it comprehends in its requirements perfect love to God in its utmost possible extent, and perfect love to man, even such as a man bears to himself: and it charges us with guilt, not merely on account of open violations of its commands, but on account of the defectiveness of our best actions.I will suppose, at this moment you are filled with love to God. Tis well: but does your love rise to the full extent that is due to him? I will take you at this, the best moment that you ever lived: Are all the powers of your soul called forth in these acts, so that there is no more defect in you than in Adam before the fall? If this be not the case, you are guilty; and these your most exalted virtues, instead of being meritorious in the sight of God, stand in need of his pardon on account of their defects. The same must be said of the best moment that you ever passed in reference to your fellow-creatures: Did your actions carry with them the whole soul in love to God, and to man for Gods sake? And were they so perfect, that there was not in them the smallest blemish or defect? If not, you stand in need of pardon for your defects; and, consequently, can claim nothing on the score of merit. Now, if the law is so rigorous in its demands as this, and admits of no deviation, no weariness, no defect even for a moment, under any circumstances, to the very end of life, what must it, of necessity, be considered as saying unto us? Think not of obtaining life by the covenant of works: you see its demands: you see how impossible it is that they should ever be relaxed: you see how inexorably it denounces its curse against the least transgression: you see, it makes no abatement on account of your weakness: it offers no assistance for the performance of any one duty: it knows nothing of repentance or reformation: it exacts perfect obedience from first to last: and that not paid, even though the failure be only once, and in the smallest point, it does nothing but denounce its curses against you. And will you seek life by such a covenant as this? Oh! flee from it; and dread lest you continue under it one hour longer. The terrors of Mount Sinai did but faintly represent the fearfulness of your state. And the strict injunctions relative to the touching of the mount did but faintly mark the impossibility of your ever gaining access to God by that covenant: and, verily, if Moses himself said on that occasion, I exceedingly fear and quake, much more may you in the contemplation of the danger to which you are exposed, and of the judgments that await you.
I am aware that this counsel of the law appears harsh. But it is not really so: nay, it is a statement in which the Israelites of old were expected cordially to acquiesce. The very passage which, with some slight alterations, the Apostle quotes in Gal 3:10, are contained in the words which the Levites, as Gods representatives, were to deliver to all the people of Israel from Mount Ebal: Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law, to do them: and all the men shall say, Amen [Note: Deu 27:26.]. Let me hope, therefore, that, instead of exclaiming, God forbid! as some perhaps would ignorantly be disposed to do, in reply to the statement before given, there shall be but one sentiment pervading this whole assembly; and that all, in a way of cordial approbation, as well as in a way of intellectual acknowledgment, shall with one voice cry, Amen, Amen.
Now, the Scripture bears ample testimony that this is indeed the first use of the law. It was not possible that a law should be given to fallen man whereby he should have life: if it had, verily, says the Apostle, righteousness should have been by the law [Note: ver. 21.]. The law, therefore, must not be regarded as intended to give life: it was given to shew how sin abounded; as St. Paul says, The law entered, that the offence might abound [Note: Rom 5:20.]; that is, might appear to abound. And again he says, By the law is the knowledge of sin [Note: Rom 3:20.]. And this view of the law will-explain what he means, when he says, I, through the law, am dead to the law [Note: Gal 2:19.]. In fact, this expression comprehends and illustrates this entire part of my subject. The Apostle saw that the law did nothing but condemn him; and therefore he renounced it utterly in point of dependence, and determined to seek salvation in some other way. And the same effect must the knowledge of the law produce on us; it must destroy all our hope by the covenant of works; and lead us to inquire after the way of salvation which God has provided for us in the Gospel of his Son.
Having pointed out this first use of the law, I now come to recommend it in that particular view, and for that express end.
It is well known that men have a great propensity to cleave to the law, and to seek salvation by it. This was the besetting sin of the Pharisees of old: they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; for, being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they would not submit to the righteousness of God [Note: Rom 10:2-3.]. This was the fault also of the Judaizing teachers: they were always blending the law with the Gospel, as a joint ground of hope before God; not being aware, that, if they relied upon the law at all, they must stand or fall by it altogether. The moment they did any thing with a view to obtain justification by it, they became debtors to do the whole law [Note: Gal 5:3.]; and, not having discharged their whole debt to that, nothing awaited them but chains of darkness for evermore. The same propensity there is in us, though it is indulged by men in very different degrees. Some look for their justification altogether upon the footing of their good works: these know not for what end good works can be required at all, but with the view of our obtaining justification by them: and, when they are told that they can never be justified by their works, they suppose that we set aside the observance of good works altogether, and encourage all manner of licentiousness. Others see, that some honour is due to Christ; and that if he came to save us, we must, in part at least, stand indebted to him for salvation. Hence they are willing to rely in part on his vicarious sacrifice, and in part on their own obedience to the law. They do not perceive that the one makes void the other; and that salvation must be wholly of works or wholly of grace; and therefore they unite the two as the foundation of their hope. But they see not that their foundation is only like the image of iron and clay in Nebuchadnezzars vision; the parts of which could never cohere, nor form any permanent basis for the superincumbent weight. Others rather think to enter into a composition with the Lord, and agree to render him service, if he will impart to them salvation. Thus, though they do not expressly unite their merits with his, they make their obedience the ground on which they hope for an interest in him; and, to a certain degree, a price, which they propose to pay for it. It never occurs to them, that they have nothing but sin and misery to present to him; and that therefore their entire hope must be in his sovereign grace and mercy. They forget that they are to receive all without money and without price. Others refine yet more; and, conceiving themselves willing to give to the Lord Jesus all the glory of their salvation, they only look to themselves for their warrant to believe in him: either they dare not go to him, because they are so vile, and therefore they will endeavour to make themselves better, in order that they may venture into his presence, and indulge a hope of acceptance with him; or, they have a good hope that he will apply to them all the benefits of his passion, because they have not transgressed beyond the common bounds of human frailty. But the plain answer to all these delusions is this: Salvation must be wholly of works, or wholly of grace: as the Apostle has said, If it be of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work [Note: Rom 11:6.]. You perceive, therefore, that you must not attempt to blend the two covenants in any respect: if you cleave in any degree to the covenant of works, you can have nothing to do with the covenant of grace: if you come not solely, and with your whole hearts, to the Lord Jesus Christ, to be saved by his blood and righteousness, laying aside and renouncing every other hope, you must go back to the covenant of works, and seek for acceptance through it. But do you not hear the law? Do you not hear how inflexible it is in its demands, and how inexorable in its denunciations? Alter it you cannot, in any respect; obey it you must, if you will still found your hopes on it in any measure or degree: and therefore it is your wisdom to adopt the determination of St. Paul, and to seek henceforth to be found in Christ; not having your own righteousness, which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God by faith in Christ [Note: Php 3:9.].
What now becomes us in this view of the law? what, indeed, but humiliation and contrition in the deepest degree? We must see how many curses hang over our devoted heads. We must not merely look at our grosser violations of the law, but at our defects: for the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; and every transgression, whether by commission or omission, whether by excess or defect, will receive its just recompence of reward. Let it be granted, then, that our lives have been blameless, as far as respects outward sin: still, if we judge ourselves by the perfect law of God, our sins will be found more than can be numbered, and greater than can be conceived. When we compare ourselves with some of our fellow-creatures, who trample under foot all the laws of God and man, we appear to be very worthy characters: and such we are in the sight of man; but in the sight of God there is by no means so great a difference between us as we are apt to imagine. In estimating our character, and weighing our comparative worth, God may see less indeed of gross iniquity, but a far more abundant measure of spiritual sins, which are not a whit less hateful in his eyes. Suppose it all true which the self-applauding Pharisee affirmed, that he had been no extortioner, not unjust, and no adulterer; did he not make ample compensation for this, by his pride, his self-complacency, his uncharitableness? Yes, in truth; these weighed as much in the scales of heaven, as the grosser evils from which he was exempt. Had he tried himself by a just standard, he would have found but little reason for his self-preference and self-applause: he would have seen that his boasted righteousness was as defective as that of the poor Publican: and the only difference between the two, supposing the one to have been as good as he imagined, and the other as evil as was supposed, was, that the one was a painted sepulchre, and the other a sepulchre without paint. I must not, indeed, be understood to say, that gross carnal sins do not add to the criminality of the person in whom they are found; but only, that, supposing one person to abound more in carnal filthiness, and another in spiritual, the latter, to say the least, has as little reason to glory in himself, or to trust in his own righteousness, as the former. The point to which we must all look for real humiliation is, the defectiveness of our obedience. Let this be seen, and seen too in all its aggravated character, as against a God of infinite love and mercy; against a Saviour who has assumed our nature, and laid down his life for us; against the Holy Spirit, who, by his gracious influences, has striven with us all our days, to guide us aright, and to bring us to repentance: let it be seen, also, as against light and knowledge, against vows and resolutions, against judgments and mercies; and, further, as continued in, for years, without any shame or remorse: let our impenitence also be marked, and our proud rejection of Gods proffered mercy in Christ Jesus: let all this be viewed; and we shall see little reason to value ourselves on not having committed some of the grossest sins: we shall see that our iniquities have grown up unto heaven; and that they must sink us into everlasting perdition, if God do not, in the multitude of his tender mercies, interpose for our deliverance, and make his grace to super-abound, where our sins have so greatly abounded, We shall see, that to call ourselves the chief of sinners, is not merely a kind of modest and becoming saying, which, whilst it sounds well from the lips, needs not be felt in the heart; but that it is a character which belongs to the very best amongst us; since the best man in the universe knows more evil in himself than he can know of others, except where the evils have been made notorious by overt acts. If the law be properly used, the person who thus tries himself by it will see himself exposed to Gods heaviest judgments, no less than the most flagrant transgressor in the world: and he will cry for mercy, precisely in the same manner as Peter did, when sinking in the waves, Save, Lord, or I perish! Others, who have not such views of the law, will wonder at him, and say, What can you have done, to call for such remorse and fear? But he knows his own desert before God, and will therefore lie low before him, in the deepest self-abasement.
This, then, is what I would wish you to do: it is for this end that I bring the subject before you: it is for this end that I hold up thus the glass of the law before your eyes, that you may know your true character before God. I would not that it should be said of us, as of the Jews of old, that we seek righteousness, and cannot attain to it, because we seek it not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law [Note: Rom 9:31-32.]. I would that it should be a settled principle in all our minds, that by the works of the law shall no flesh living be justified [Note: Rom 3:20.]. O, if we could but listen to this monitor! If the warnings which he gives us be alarming, they still are salutary: and it were surely better be warned that our house is built on sand, than that we should be left to perish under its ruins. And were a person who perceived our danger to withhold the warning, he would be justly considered by all as accessary to our destruction.
I am aware that there has been an aspect of severity about this part of my subject; of severity, which I would gladly have avoided, if it had been compatible with that fidelity which became me. But I speak to an audience who can distinguish between the harsh anathemas of man, and the authoritative declarations of Almighty God. If, indeed, I have put a harsher sense upon Gods word than it manifestly imports, I will be contented that all the blame, which such an inconsiderate proceeding would deserve, shall attach to me. But, if I have spoken only what God himself has authorized and enjoined, and what will assuredly be found true at the last, then let me hope, that the salutary warning will be kindly received; and that you will be the better prepared for our next subject, wherein a balm will be applied to every wound, and a refuge opened for every one that would flee from the wrath to come. To that I look forward, as to a subject far more congenial with my feelings than the terrors of the law. To bring forward the glad tidings of salvation, and to proclaim mercy through the sufferings of our incarnate God, is, I trust, the joy and delight of my soul. From the first moment that ever a dispensation was committed to me to preach the Gospel, I have determined to know nothing in my ministrations but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. O that in my next I may be enabled to commend Him to you, as a suitable and all-sufficient Saviour! And if, through what has been already spoken, any of you be pricked in your hearts, and be stirred up to cry, What shall we do to be saved? may the answer, that shall be given you in my next, be accompanied with a blessing from on high, and prove the power of God unto salvation to every one that hears it [Note: Rom 1:16.]!
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
DISCOURSE: 2066
THE LAW, A SCHOOLMASTER, TO BRING US TO CHRIST
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?
WE are now arrived at the second use of the law, which is very strongly pointed out in the passage before us. The law itself has been explained as spiritual; and as extending to the whole of mans duty, whether to God or man. This, as you have heard, was originally given to man as a covenant of life: and, if man had obeyed it perfectly, it would have given him a title to life. But to man in his fallen state, that which was ordained to life is found to be unto death. The first use, therefore, of the law now is, as a monitor, to guard us against adhering to the first covenant. The second use is as an instructor, to guide us to a better covenant [Note: ver. 24.]. And it is in this view that I am to speak of it at this time.
You will perceive that I exclude from my discussion every thing which does not immediately belong to my argument. The subject itself is exceedingly extensive, and might easily be pursued through a great variety of branches, all useful and important in their place. But to prosecute it to this extent would be to weaken the general impression. I wish the whole of what I shall have to offer to be an answer to the question specified in the words before us, Wherefore then serveth the law? To shew what the law is, was necessary of course: so that the exhibition of that was no deviation from my plan, but rather indispensable to the prosecution of it. And my strict adherence to this line, if it appear to leave out much which might enrich the subject, will have this advantage at least, that it will simplify the subject. And, in truth, after having so solemnly prepared your minds for it in the first discourse, I should feel that I were criminally inattentive to your feelings, if I did not labour to the uttermost to keep that alone in view which I then described to be of so much importance.
To open, then, that part of the subject on which I am now entering, I must, shew, in the first place, What we refer to as that better covenant; and then, How the law, as an instructor, guides us to it.
First, What do we mean by that better covenant? What better covenant has God given us? You will naturally say, Let us know, distinctly, what the covenant is? With whom it was made? In what respects it is a better covenant? And, after all, what it has to do with the subject before us?
To these points I will briefly address myself in succession.
What the covenant is, the Prophet Jeremiah will inform us: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people [Note: Jer 31:31-33.]. But has this anything to do with us under the Christian dispensation? Yes: twice does the Apostle quote that very passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Note: Heb 8:8-10; Heb 10:15-17.]; expressly declaring, in both places, that it is that very covenant which we, under the Gospel dispensation, are supposed to have embraced.
But when, and with whom, was this covenant made? It is that covenant which God made with Abraham, when he promised to him, that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed [Note: Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18; Gen 26:4.]. St. Peter, addressing the Jews of his day, says, Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed [Note: Act 3:25.].
But what have we to do with it? St. Paul tells us, it is the Gospel covenant, whereby we, and every one under the Gospel dispensation, must be saved: The Scripture, says he, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed [Note: Gal 3:8.].
But in what respects is this a better covenant? It is by God himself called a better covenant: and well does it deserve that name; since, as he tells us, it is established upon better promises. The covenant, so far as it was a national covenant, made with the Jewish people, promised nothing but temporal blessings; and, as made with Adam in Paradise, and with all mankind in him, it promised nothing but upon perfect obedience. But the new covenant engages to supply our every want: it points out a Saviour to us; and makes over to us, not pardon only, but purity; assuring us, that God will send to us his Holy Spirit, to renew us after the Divine image; and to give us, not heaven only, but also a meetness for the enjoyment of it. One of its principal provisions is, A new heart will I give unto you, and a new spirit will I put within you. In a word, the covenant of works required every tiring, and imparted nothing: whereas the covenant of grace imparts every thing, and requires nothing, except that we should receive thankfully what God offers to us freely, in the Son of his love.(Of course, in the free offers of God I include the new heart, of which I have just spoken, and the entire sanctification of the life as flowing from it.) I may add, too, that the new covenant has a better Mediator. Moses, the mediator of the covenant of works, could do nothing for his people, but make known to them what God had revealed to him: whereas our Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is ever living to intercede for us with the Father; and has in himself a fulness treasured up for us, a fulness of all that we ever can stand in need of. In fact, he is not a Mediator only of the covenant, but a Surety of it [Note: Heb 7:22.] also: and he engages with us for God, and with God for us: with us for God, that he shall never depart from us to do us good; and with God for us, that he will put his fear in our hearts, so that we shall never depart from him [Note: Jer 32:40]. This, I say, is the very covenant which he makes with us: and it is from this that we derive all our hopes both of grace and glory [Note: See Heb 10:14-17.].
You will still ask, What, after all, has this to do with the argument before us? I answer, It is the covenant which St. Paul declares to have been made with Abraham for the benefit of himself and all his believing posterity; and which he therefore calls us to lay hold on, in order that we may be delivered from the curse entailed on us by the first covenant. Hear his own statement, in the passage which on the last occasion we considered: All, says he, are cursed by the law: but Christ has redeemed us from that curse, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ. Then, lest we should think that the Abrahamic covenant was superseded by that which was afterwards made with Moses, he observes, that it could not be disannulled by any transaction that took place with Moses on Mount Sinai, because only one of the parties that were interested in it was present on that occasion. Then comes his question, Wherefore, then, serveth the law? And this he answers by observing, that it was added because of trangressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; or, in other words, that it was to be introductory to a new covenant, and to prepare men for their admission into it. Still, however, as there was, in appearance, an opposition between the two covenants, he asks, Is the law then against the promises of God? No: God forbid! says he: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded (shut up) all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept (kept in close custody) under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law, so far from keeping us from Christ to be justified by works, was actually our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Hence he concludes, that, faith being now come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster, but are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
We see, then, what the better covenant is, and wherein its superiority consists; the one being a covenant of works, and the other, of grace. We see, also, that the covenant of works, though re-published four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made with Abraham, was not intended to supersede the covenant of grace, but to be subservient to it, and to shut up men to it, and to constrain them to embrace it.
I am fearful of obscuring the subject by multiplying citations of Holy Writ: I will, therefore, close this part with merely adducing one passage as explanatory of the whole. St. Paul, contrasting the two covenants, represents each of them as declaring to us its own terms, precisely in the way that I have done: Moses describeth the righteousness of the law, That the man that doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is to bring Christ down from above:) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation [Note: Rom 10:5-10.].
Having then shewn what this better covenant is, I now come to shew how the law, as an instructor, guides us to this better covenant; or, as my text expresses it, how it is a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
It must ever be borne in mind, that the law can never be set aside: in its requirements, and in its sanctions, it is unalterable, even as God himself is. It is holy, and can never abate of its commands; it is just, and can never mitigate its sanctions; it is good, and must eternally continue so, whatever may become of those who are subject to its dominion. In every thing which it requires, its direct tendency is, to promote the honour of God, and the happiness of man; and, if it become an occasion of unhappiness to any, it is only through their own perverseness in violating its commands. Being, then, thus immutable, what does it say to us? It says, The curse I have denounced, must be inflicted; and the commands I have given must be obeyed. If there be any person found to endure the one for you, and to fulfil the other, and God be pleased to accept him in your be-half, it is well. But without such a deference to my rights, and such a regard to my honour, shall no flesh living be saved. I must be magnified and made honourable [Note: Isa 42:21.] in the eyes of the whole creation, before any child of man shall find acceptance with Him from whom I proceeded, and whose authority I maintain [Note: The dialogue form, which the Apostle makes use of in this passage, has been adopted by the Author in this and the preceding Discourse, in order to compress a great mass of materials into the smallest possible space, and to employ them, as lie hopes, to the greatest possible advantage, he is aware that the style is unusual in this species of composition (it is unusual even in his own writings): but if it convey the truth more forcibly, he hopes it may on this occasion be excused. The same form of dialogue, with all its abruptness, is used also by the Apostle, in the third chapter to the Romans.].
Thus, so to speak, the law puts us upon looking out for a Saviour. But where shall one be found that answers to this character, or can by any means sustain this office? Where shall we find one who is capable of bearing the wrath of Almighty God? Where shall we find one that is capable of obeying in all things the perfect law of God? And, above all, where shall we find one that can do these things for us? A creature must sink under the wrath of God: for that wrath is everlasting. There can never come a period when that curse shall end, and the cup which the sinner is doomed to drink of shall be exhausted. So also, if a creature, even the highest archangel, were to subject himself to the controul of the law, he could obey only for himself. As a creature, he would be bound to fulfil all that the law has enjoined: he could do nothing beyond what was absolutely required; and therefore, after all, he would be only an unprofitable servant. He could not obey for others: he could not exceed what was due from himself. The only thing that could give the slightest hope to man, so far at least as has ever been revealed, would be, for God himself to put himself in the place of sinners, and in their nature to suffer and obey for them. But how could this be hoped? How could such a thought as this be entertained, for a moment, in the bosom of God, or in the mind of any of his creatures? Were this possible, there might indeed be a hope; because the dignity of the sufferer would put a value on his sufferings, sufficient to overbalance the eternal sufferings of the whole world; and the obedience paid by the Lawgiver himself, who could be under no obligation to obey it, till he had assumed our nature for that very end, would be sufficient to form a justifying righteousness for all the sinners of mankind. But how can such a thing be contemplated for a moment? How can it come within the verge of probabilityI might almost say, of possibility? But, whatever be thought of this matter, the law says, I can consent to no lower terms than these. Suppose such a plan sanctioned, approved, and executed by the Almighty himself, then I can consent to the salvation of sinners; yea, I can not only consent to it, but highly approve of it; because, by having Jehovah himself enduring my penalties, and executing my commands, I shall be infinitely more glorified than I ever could have been either by the obedience or condemnation of the whole human race. Let but such a covenant as this be made and executed on Gods part, and I consent that you shall be saved by it; yea, and that you shall receive a weight of glory far beyond what you ever could have received, if you had never fallen.
Such hints we may suppose to be given by the law. And now we look into the Gospel, to find whether such an idea ever was, or could be, realized. And behold, with what amazement must we see that such a plan has actually been devised and executed by Almighty God! Can it be indeed, that God has assumed our nature, and obeyed and suffered in our stead, and wrought out a righteousness for us, that, being clothed in it, we may stand without spot or blemish before him? Yes; it is true: God has been manifest in the flesh, and made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted: he has also fulfilled the law in its utmost possible extent: he has, moreover, borne our sins in his own body on the tree, and for our sakes become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. To redeem us from the curse of the law, he has actually become a curse for us: yes, He, who knew no sin, has become sin for us; that we, who had, and could have, no righteousness, might be made the righteousness of God in him. This point, then, being clearly ascertained, let us hear our divine instructor, and sit at the feet of this heavenly schoolmaster. Methinks I hear the law saying to me, You have heard the strictness of my demands, and the awfulness of my denunciations: now hear the end for which I have so proclaimed both the one and the other: it has been to shew you your need of a Saviour; it has been to make you welcome this Saviour, and embrace him with your whole hearts. Had I been less strict in my demands, or less awful in my denunciations, you would still have adhered to me, and founded your hopes on me. But I have thundered thus, in order to drive you to despair of ever finding acceptance through me; and to urge you, with all possible speed and earnestness, to lay hold on the hope set before you in the Gospel.
Let me now suppose one to ask, But how shall I go to the Saviour? How shall I obtain an interest in him? How shall I procure his favour? What would he have me do, in order to recommend myself to him [Note: Joh 6:28.]? In reply to all these anxious inquiries, our schoolmaster gives us this important information:You must not attempt to recommend yourselves to him by any works whatever: you must go ignorant, that you may be enlightened; guilty, that you may be pardoned; polluted, that you may be purified; enslaved, that you may experience his complete redemption. You must carry nothing to him but your wants and miseries; and expect nothing at his hands but as the fruit of his mediation, and as the free gift of God for his sake. You must renounce every thing of your own; and desire to have him made all unto you, your wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, that to all eternity you may glory in the Lord alone [Note: 1Co 1:30-31.]. If you entertain the idea of meriting or earning any thing at his hands by your own good works, you will only come back to me, and be dealt with according to the terms proposed by me. You must disclaim all thought of this; and be content to be saved by grace alone, and to receive every thing out of the fulness that is treasured up in Christ. For this end, you must trust in him, and live altogether by faith in him. You well know how a branch receives every thing from the stock into which it has been engrafted: precisely thus must you receive from him all the blessings both of grace and glory. You must by faith abide in him: and, by virtue derived from him, bring forth fruit to the glory of his name. This is a way of salvation both suited to you, and honourable to God: it is suited to you, because it provides every thing for you as a free gift: and it is honourable to God, because, whilst it preserves my honour inviolate, it exalts and glorifies every perfection of the Deity. I charge you, then, embrace the covenant which Christ has ratified with his blood: exercise faith in him: look to him as the procuring cause of all your blessings. And be not discouraged by any sense of your own unworthiness; but go to him as the very chief of sinners, that you may be made the brightest monuments of his grace. It was for sinners that he came, to call them to repentance: it was the lost, and them alone, whom he came to save: and the more deeply you feel your need of him, the more readily will he receive you to the arms of mercy: for his address to persons in your very state is, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool: him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.
And now, after having heard the advice given by the law, shall 1 go too far, if I entreat you all to sit at the feet of this schoolmaster, as his disciples? I grant, that there is an aspect of severity about him: but he will teach you aright. He is sent by God himself for your instruction: and all who will obey his dictates shall assuredly be guided into the way of peace. Other instructors, beside the law, you will find in great numbers, who will speak to you in milder terms, and accommodate themselves more to your carnal minds. But O! listen not to them. Many pleasing statements they will give, about the value of good works, and the mercy of God, and about the Saviour having lowered the terms of salvation to sincere obedience. But they will only deceive you to your ruin. Take their favourite term, of sincere obedience: no matter whether it be to the moral law, or to a reduced and mitigated law of their own formation: let it be a law of any kind that can possibly be conceived to have proceeded from God; and then suppose yourselves to stand or fall by your sincere obedience to that law: where is there one amongst you that ever could be saved? If this is the standard by which you are to be tried, it has been so from the beginning of your life: and where is there one amongst us that has from the beginning of his life sincerely striven with all his might to mortify every inclination which his judgment condemned; and to fulfil, to the uttermost, every duty, both to God and man, so far as he was acquainted with it, or might have been acquainted with it, if he had sincerely improved every opportunity of gaining instruction? Who has from his earliest youth acted up fully to the light that he has enjoyed, and done every thing which he knew or believed to be required of him? Nay, who would dare to stand upon this ground for any one day of his life, and consent that his everlasting doom should be determined by the issue of such a trial? Know, then, that these blind instructors will, if listened to, betray you to your everlasting ruin. Some there are, who, unable to endure sound doctrine, will labour to shew, that all which is spoken in the Gospel about faith in Christ means no more than a general belief of his word; and that, after all, salvation is, and must be, in part at least, by the works of the law. But, if any man will say that Christ hath either repealed or mitigated, let him shew us what law that is which Christ has repealed, or mitigated, and reduced to the standard of human capacity to obey it. But this no man on earth can shew. The law is unalterable, both in its demands and sanctions; and if we will but listen to it as our instructor, it will guide us infallibly to the Saviour of the world. It will tell you plainly, I cannot save you, either in whole or in part: but the Lord Jesus Christ both can, and will, if you will believe in him. And, if you needed an intercessor with the Father to receive you for Christs sake, I myself, if permitted to be heard, would become your friend: yes, I, who have denounced so many curses against you, would willingly become your advocate. If suffered to address the Most High, I would say, Thou thyself, O God, didst appoint thy Son Jesus Christ to be their Surety: and He has paid to me the utmost farthing of their debt. Did I demand, that all the curses which the violation of my precepts merited, should be inflicted? they have been borne by him. Did I require that perfect obedience should be rendered to my commands? it has been rendered by him. Only admit Him, therefore, as their Surety, and I have nothing to demand at their hands: or rather my demand must be, that they who plead the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ for them, may stand accepted through his righteousness; and may be rewarded with eternal life, precisely as they would have been, if they had themselves fulfilled all that I required of them. Nay, I would even go further, and ask, that they may be recompensed with a higher degree of glory than they ever could have attained by their own obedience; because the obedience and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ their Saviour have done infinitely greater honour to me than ever could have been done either by the obedience or sufferings of the whole world.
Listen, then, I entreat you, to the counsels of this instructor. They are safe: nor can they be resisted, but at the peril of your souls. Only get a clear understanding of that question, Wherefore, then, serveth the law? and then you will be prepared for all the blessings of the Gospel, and find in Christ all that your necessities require.
An illustration of my whole subject shall now place it in a point of view in which it cannot possibly be misapprehended. O that God may be graciously pleased to open all our hearts, to discern, to embrace, to realize the truth as it shall now be exhibited before you! We have supposed you all to be condemned by the law; and to be precisely in the condition of the Israelites when bitten by the fiery serpents; incapable of restoring yourselves to health, or of finding any healing balm in the whole universe. What now shall be done? Death is sweeping you off in quick succession; and, ah! whither is it bearing you? But for you, who are yet alive, can no remedy be found? Yes: Moses shall point out a remedy;that very Moses, who gave the law, and denounced the curse against all who should transgress it;that very Moses, I say, shall be your instructor and counsellor: and if you believe Moses, you shall believe in Christ. By Gods command he erected a brazen serpent; and proclaimed the joyful tidings, that all who should look unto it should be saved. The opportunity was gladly embraced by the perishing multitudes, and the means were instantly crowned with the desired success. And happy am I to say, that at this very moment is that transaction renewed in the midst of you. You are all dying of the wounds of sin. Not a creature in the universe can render you the least assistance towards a recovery from your perishing condition. But the Lord Jesus Christ is this day set forth crucified in the midst of you: and the law itself, yes, the law itself, I say, directs you to Him, as Gods appointed ordinance for your salvation. This day does the law proclaim itself as your instructor, to bring you to Christ, that you may be justified by faith in him. And is this an illustration of mine? Is the comparison between the two a mere accidental coincidence? No: the one was intended, by God himself, to be an illustration of the other. Hear the application of this record, as it was made by our Lord Jesus Christ himself: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so shall the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. View, then, the Saviour this day erected on the cross; and hear him addressing you in these gracious terms, Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth! for I am God, and there is none else, no Saviour beside me [Note: Isa 45:22.].
Thus, then, you see that both the law and the Gospel, if properly understood, speak the same language. Both the one and the other say, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. All that believe in him are justified from all things. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. May God Almighty discover to us all this blessed truth, and give us the sweet experience of it in our own souls! Sure I am, that, if our last discourse placed the law in a terrific view, you cannot now do otherwise than behold it as a most faithful counsellor and friendly instructor: and, if it please God to accompany his word with power to your souls, you will have reason to bless God for every wound that has been inflicted; and will enter fully into our next discourse, with a determination, through grace, that, whilst you flee from the law as a covenant, you will not neglect it as a rule of life; but will rather delight in it in your inward man, and aspire after the most perfect conformity to it in the whole of your deportment.
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
DISCOURSE: 2067
THE THIRD USE OF THE LAW, AS A RULE OF LIFE
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?
THE last use of the law being now to be contemplated, we shall set before you the law as a rule to govern us, when we have embraced the new covenant. And it is with peculiar pleasure that I enter upon this subject, because there exists at this day, precisely as there did in the apostolic age, a jealousy upon the subject of good works, and a fear lest the free salvation of the Gospel should render men indifferent to them. You will remember, that St. Pauls statements gave occasion to men to ask, Shall we, then, continue in sin, that grace may abound [Note: Rom 6:1.]? And the same thoughts may possibly have arisen in your minds, whilst I have with all the clearness in my power, shewn, that we are not, in any degree whatever, to seek justification by the works of the law, but solely and exclusively by faith in Christ. I did, indeed, endeavour to guard against such thoughts, by intimating, in the very first instance, that there was a third end and use of the law, namely, to be a rule of life to the believer: but had I been less guarded in this respect, and left this point to be developed afterwards, without any previous intimation of my purpose, I fear that the same objections, as were urged against the Apostles statements, would have greatly enervated mine, and prevented that favourable reception which I hope, through the tender mercy of God, they have met with in your minds. But I have longed for the present occasion, that I might vindicate the Gospel from the charge of licentiousness; and prove, to the satisfaction of you all, that it is indeed, what the Apostle calls it, a doctrine according to godliness.
St. Paul was at all times most anxious to guard against a misconception of his sentiments and conduct on account of his neglect of the ceremonial law. The one great object of his ministry was, to win souls to Christ. For the advancement of this end, he conformed, in all matters of indifference, to the views of those amongst whom he ministered; to the Jews, becoming a Jew; to those who were under the law, as under the law; and to those who were without law, as without law. But, fearing lest these compliances of his might be construed as a contempt of the divine authority, he took care to remove all ground for such an idea, by declaring, that he still considered himself as much bound to obey God as ever; or, rather, that he felt himself under additional obligations to fulfil all the divine commands, in consideration of the unbounded mercy that had been vouchsafed to him through Jesus Christ. He had, it is true, neglected the observances of the law: but it had not been from any disrespect to Gods commands, but because that law was in fact abrogated; whereas the moral law was as much in force as ever: and to the latest hour of his life he should look upon himself as under that law to Christ [Note: 1Co 9:21.].
This acknowledgment of his comes fully to our point. It shews, that he still regarded the law as a rule of life; and it gives me a fair opportunity,
1st, To establish the perpetuity of the law, as a rule of life; and,
2dly, To enforce its obligations.
I. In order to establish the perpetuity of the law as a rule of life, let it be remembered, that the law is a perfect transcript of the mind and will of God. It arises necessarily out of the relation which we bear to him and to each other. It did not depend on any arbitrary appointment of the Deity, (except, indeed, so far as the Sabbath is concerned,) but would have been equally in force whether it had been the subject of a particular revelation or not. Allowance, indeed, will, as St. Paul informs us, be made for those, who, for want of a revelation, have but very imperfect conceptions respecting the Divine will [Note: Rom 2:14-15.]: but, wherever that is known, it must be a rule of conduct to man, and will be a rule of judgment to God. No change of circumstances whatever can alter its demands. In whatever situation we be, it must be our duty to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves: nor can this law by any means be dispensed with. In truth, God cannot dispense with any part of this law; for if he did, he would authorize men to despoil themselves of his image, and to rob him of his glory.
That the law is still a rule of duty to the people of God, appears from that injunction of St. Paul, in the thirteenth chapter to the Romans: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Then, specifying the duties contained in the second table of the law as essential constituents of true love, he adds, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law [Note: Rom 13:8-10.]. Consequently, if it is our duty to exercise love, it is our duty to fulfil the law, which is in all respects identified with love.
But to insist on this is needless: for, instead of the law being superseded by the Lord Jesus Christ, it is in his hand more imperative than ever, and comes to us with tenfold obligations to obey it: and this is the point to which I mean to call your particular attention. To say that we are not without law to God, is comparatively a small matter: the point I am to establish is, that we are under the law to Christ.
In confirmation of this, I assert, that our obedience to the law was contemplated by God himself: first, in all that Christ did and suffered for us; next, in his liberating of us from the law as a covenant of works; and, lastly, in his admission of us into a new covenant, the covenant of grace.
First, I say, our obedience to the law was one great object which our Lord and Saviour had in view, in all that he did and suffered for us. It was not from death only that he came to save us, but from sin. Indeed, he was on that very account named Jesus, because he was to save his people from their sins [Note: Mat 1:21.]. Hear how plainly this was declared concerning him, even before he came into the world: Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when filled with the Holy Ghost, prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us..to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life [Note: Luk 1:67-75.]. This clearly shews, that, instead of making void the law, Christ has established its authority to the very end of time. And to this agrees the testimony of St. Paul: He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. And again, expressly adverting to the government which Jesus still maintains over his people, he says, None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself: for whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lords: for to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living [Note: Rom 14:7-8.].
Next I say, that our obedience to the law was a most important end, for which we are liberated from the law as a covenant of works. This is repeatedly asserted by St. Paul. In the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, he says, The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death: (that is, the Gospel hath freed me from the law:) for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh: (and now observe for what end)that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit [Note: Rom 8:2-4.]. The law could neither justify nor sanctify us: the Gospel does both: and the very end for which Christ has liberated us from the law, was, that both these ends might be accomplished in us.
To this I will add a passage, which needs no explanation: it is so clear, so precise, so full to the point, that it leaves no doubt upon the subject. St. Paul, speaking of his own experience, says, I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live unto God [Note: Gal 2:19.].Here you perceive that it was the law itself which made him dead to the law. It was so rigorous in its demands, and so awful in its sanctions, that he utterly despaired of obtaining salvation by it; and, in this view, became wholly dead to it. But did he therefore neglect it as a rule of life? Quite the reverse: Through the law, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God, and serve him in newness of life.
But there is an illustration of this matter given us by the Apostle, which places it in a still clearer point of view; in a view at once peculiarly beautiful, and unquestionably just. In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans he compares the law to a man to whom the Church is united, as it were, in the bonds of marriage. He then observes, that, as a wife is bound to her husband by the nuptial contract as long as he lives, and would be justly called an adulteress if she were to connect herself with another man during his life, so are we united in the closest bonds of the law. But, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his satisfying all the demands of that law for us, its power over us is annulled, and it becomes, from the very moment of our believing in him, dead with respect to us; so that we are at liberty to be united to Christ, and to enter into a new covenant with him. This benefit, he observes, we derive from Christ. But for what end? That our obligations to holiness may be vacated? No; by no means; but the very reverse: he conveys this benefit, in order that, in our new-covenant state, we may bring forth that fruit, which we never did, nor could, bring forth in connexion with our former husband. Hear his own words: Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) (I beg you to pay particular attention to thin, because it is addressed to those especially who know the law,) Know ye not how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman who hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but, if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ (that is, through the sufferings of Christ, the power of the law over you is cancelled), that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that ye should bring forth fruit unto God [Note: Rom 7:1-4.]. If there were no other passage in all the Scriptures than this, it would be quite sufficient, not only to establish the point in hand, but to silence, for ever, all jealousies respecting the practical intent and tendency of the Gospel.
But I must go on yet further to observe, in the last place, that our obedience to the law is one of the chief blessings conferred upon us by the new covenant, the covenant of grace. You will remember, that the first covenant merely says, Do this, and live. It condemns for disobedience; but never does any thing towards enabling us to obey. But what says God to us in. the new covenant? This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law into their mind, and write it in their hearts [Note: Heb 8:10.]. And again, A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh: and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and to keep my judgments and do them [Note: Eze 36:26-27.]. Here, by the very terms of the new covenant, is obedience to the law infallibly secured; because God himself undertakes to work it in us by the influences of his good Spirit. His assured promise to every one that embraces the new covenant is, Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace [Note: Rom 6:14.].
Hence, then, you see the perpetuity of the law fully established. It is only in its covenant form that it is cancelled: as a rule of duty, it is, as I have before observed, altogether unchangeable: and its authority, instead of being invalidated by the Gospel, is confirmed and strengthened by it: since our obedience to it was, as I have distinctly shewn, first, the end for which Christ came into the world; next, the end for which he delivered us from the law as a covenant of works; and, lastly, the end for which he has brought us into the new covenant, the covenant of grace. In answer, therefore, to every one who doubts the practical tendency of the Gospel, we are prepared to say, with the Apostle Paul, Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid [Note: Rom 6:15.].
Having thus endeavoured, with the utmost plainness, to shew that we are still under the law to Christ, I come,
In the II. place, to enforce its obligations.
Is the law designed to be a rule to govern us after we have laid hold on the covenant of grace? Let us use it for that end, without attempting to lower any one of its demands, and with the utmost cheerfulness and zeal. Let us, first, use it for that end. Doubtless, its primary uses must be carefully kept in remembrance. We must never forget, that its first office is, to convince us of sin, and to shew us our undone state, according to the covenant of works. In this view it must produce in us the deepest humiliation, and an utter renunciation of all dependence on our own works, either in whole or in part, for justification before God. Its next use must be, to drive us to the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, that we may obtain salvation through his meritorious death and passion. There is no righteousness but his, that is commensurate with its demands; and there is no other in which we can ever stand accepted before God. These things, I say, we must ever bear in remembrance; and be careful never to make, in any degree, our obedience to the law a ground of our hope. But, having this well settled in our minds, we must address ourselves to a diligent performance of all that the law enjoins. It is by this that we are to shew ourselves to have experienced a work of grace in our souls: for we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. If we profess to hope that we have been chosen of God and predestinated unto life, shall we make these mysterious truths an occasion of remissness in the path of duty? God forbid: on the contrary, we must ever bear in mind, that, if we have been chosen of God at all, we have been chosen that we may be holy, and without blame before him in love; and if we have been predestinated by God at all, we have been predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. And if we glory in the finished work of Christ (for you will take notice that I am following the Antinomian into all his strong-holds), we must remember what his end was in accomplishing salvation for us: We have been bought with a price, that we may glorify him with our body and our spirit, which are his. There are two great errors from which we must keep equally remote; namely, from legal dependence on our own obedience to the law, and, at the same time, from an Antinomian contempt of its commands. We must distinguish between the motives and principles by which we are actuated, and which determine the true quality of our actions. Whatever we do, in order to earn salvation by it, will be rejected of God, and will disappoint our hopes: but, whatever we do from a sense of duty to God, and with a view to honour the Saviour and evince the sincerity of our love to him, will be accepted for his sake, and will receive a proportionable reward of grace. Only take cave that your obedience be from faith and love, and not from a vain hope to purchase the Divine favour; and then will you answer the true ends of your deliverance from the law as a covenant of works, and of your subjection to it as a rule of life.
In enforcing the obligations of the law, I would next say, Attempt not in any thing to lower its demands. We have before shewn, that, as a covenant, it recedes not from its commands of perfect obedience; no, not in one jot or tittle of its requirements. And, as a rule, its requirements are of equal extent. It enjoins us to love God with all our heart, and all our mind, and all our soul, and all our strength; and to love our neighbour as ourselves: and no lower standard must we propose to ourselves for our daily walk. We must not be satisfied with the worlds standard: we must not be contented with a round of duties, and the performance of a few kind and charitable acts. We must die unto sin altogether, and live unto righteousness. We must seek to have the whole body of sin crucified within us; and must delight ourselves in the law after our inward man, and strive to perfect holiness in the fear of God. Nothing must satisfy us, but the attainment of Gods perfect image in righteousness and true holiness. If the law is our rule, Christ himself must be our pattern: we must endeavour to walk in all things as he walked, and to purify ourselves even as he is pure. Nothing short of absolute perfection should satisfy our minds: we should strive to be holy, as God himself is holy, and to be perfect, even as our Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Now, need I say that these efforts are very rarely seen? and that, when seen, they are almost universally discountenanced and discouraged? Cautions in plenty are given, not to be righteous over-much: but who ever hears the friendly caution, to be righteous enough? If we are outwardly decent and moral, we may be as regardless of the state of our souls before God as we please, and no one will warn us of our danger: but, if the love of Christ constrain us to devote ourselves altogether unto him, there is a general alarm respecting us; and nothing is heard but cautions and warnings on every side.
Let it not be imagined that I would recommend any thing that savours of real enthusiasm or fanaticism: so far from it, I would discourage these evils to the utmost of my power: but, if love to God and love to man be, by common consent, as it were, branded with these names, I say, let not any man be deterred from the performance of his duty by any opprobrious names whatever; but let every one aspire after universal holiness, and seek to stand perfect and complete in all the will of God [Note: Col 4:12.].
One thing more would I say; namely this: In your obedience to the law, be willing servants. We are not to serve the Lord grudgingly, or of necessity, but with a willing mind. What St. Paul has spoken on this head deserves peculiar attention. He says, now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held: that we should serve God in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter [Note: Rom 7:6.]. Here he refers to the same image as before, the dissolution of marriage by the death of our husband; and the consequent termination of those restraints, in which, during his life, we were held. But what is to be the effect of this liberty? an abandonment of ourselves to sin? No: but an obeying of our new husband, not in the servile way to which we have been accustomed, but with real pleasure and delight, panting after the highest possible perfection both of heart and life. This service we are to account perfect freedom: and we are to live altogether for him, running the way of his commandments with enlarged hearts. Now, whereever the Spirit is, there is this liberty [Note: 2Co 3:17.]. But, alas! how little of this liberty is seen in the Christian world! Instead of panting to attain the full measure of the stature of Christ, we are satisfied with our own stinted growth; so that, in the course of several years, scarcely any improvement is visible in us. The little we do for the Lord, is rather from constraint, than willingly. Our defects create in us no real humiliation: our weakness stimulates us not to earnest cries for help: our inability to fulfil our duty leads us not to exult and glory in the work of Christ, or to clothe ourselves from day to day with his perfect righteousness. No: of these feelings, respecting which I spoke largely in my first discourse, the generality are wholly destitute; and therefore destitute, because they understand not the law either in its condemning or its commanding power. Ignorant of the law, they are of necessity ignorant of the Gospel also; and, consequently, are strangers to all those high and holy feelings which the Gospel inspires. Be it however remembered, that if, through the knowledge of the law, we be, as we must be, dead to the law, we shall account it our first duty, and our truest happiness, to live unto our God.
Before I close my subject, I think you will not deem me presumptuous if I venture to address a few words to my brethren who either are already in the ministry, or are preparing to engage in that sacred office. I think it must strike you, that this subject has by no means that prominence in our public addresses which its importance demands. If it be true, that without the knowledge of the law we cannot understand the Gospel, the neglect of opening the law is most injurious to the souls of men. I know, indeed, that God may, by convincing men of sin, supply that defect; and lead them to a simple reliance on the Saviour, even whilst they are ignorant of the spirituality of the law, and of the uses for which it was promulgated: but still they cannot be truly enlightened Christians; nor can their faith be so firm as it would be, if they had more enlarged views of the Gospel. But how can we hope that this work of conviction should prevail amongst our hearers, when we withhold from them Gods appointed means of producing it in their souls? In truth, this accounts, in a great measure, for the inefficiency of our ministrations. In numberless places, during a whole course of years, not so much as a single instance is found of a sinner being pricked to the heart, and crying out, What must I do to be saved? or, if such an instance occur, it is found only in some one who is condemned by the mere letter of the law. But it would not be so, if the law were preached by us in all its spirituality and extent, and the Gospel were represented as Gods only remedy for the salvation of men. A simple exhibition of these truths would reach the heart, and would be accompanied with power from on high. Let me then entreat you, for your own sake, and for your peoples sake, to study the law; and to make the use of it which God has especially ordained, even to drive them, like the pursuer of blood, to the refuge that is set before them in the Gospel.
If there be amongst us any who yet cannot understand this subject, let me next, address them, and entreat that they will not too hastily dismiss it from their minds: for verily, it demands from every child of man the most attentive consideration. I know that prejudices do exist, even as they have in all ages existed, against both the Law and the Gospel; against the Law as severe, and against the Gospel as licentious. But, to every one of you I must say, Take heed to this subject: for it is your life: and, in unfolding it to you, I have, with all possible fidelity, set life and death before you. Let the law, I pray you, have its first work in convincing you of sin. Let it then operate effectually to bring you to Christ. And, lastly, let it serve you as a rule, to which your whole life shall be conformed. Set not yourselves against it in any one of these views: set not yourselves against it, as too harsh in its covenant form, or too lax in its abrogated state, or too strict in its requirements as a rule: but improve it for all the ends for which it has been given; so shall it work its whole work within you, and bring you in safety to God, to holiness, to glory.
But I trust there are amongst us not a few who really know the law, and approve of it in all its uses. And to them, lastly, I would address myself. To them, in particular, I would say, Be sure that you unreservedly give yourselves up to God. Those who enter not into your views, will judge both of you and of your principles by the holiness of your lives. Let them see in you what the tendency of the Gospel really is: let them see, that the grace of God, which brings salvation to you, teaches you to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live righteously, and soberly, and godly, in this present world. You will forgive me, if I feel a more than ordinary anxiety about you. On you the honour of God and his Gospel pre-eminently depends: and I am earnestly desirous that you should walk worthy of your high calling; yea, and worthy of the Lord himself also, unto all pleasing. I would that there should not be a duty either to God or man in which you should be found remiss. Whatever your situation particularly requires, that should be an object of your most diligent attention; that, if a comparison be instituted between you and those who make no profession of religion, you may at least be found to stand on equality with the best amongst them; and be able to say, Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they exemplary in the whole of their deportment? so am I. It must never be forgotten, that the duties of the second table are as necessary to be observed as those of the first: and if there be one amongst you who would set the two at variance, I must declare my testimony against him, as greatly dishonouring the Gospel of Christ. But of the great mass of religious characters amongst you, I am persuaded better things, though I thus speak. Go on then, I entreat you, and abound more and more in every thing that is excellent and praiseworthy: and, in reference to every duty that is required of you, let it be seen that you are under the law to Christ. This is expected at your hands, and may well be expected: for if you are remiss in these things, who will be attentive to them? Remember, it is by well-doing that you are to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: and never forget, that there is no other way of proving yourselves Christs disciples indeed, but by doing his will, and keeping his Commandments [Note: Joh 14:15. 1Co 7:19. 1Jn 2:3-4.]. [Note: The reader, after reading these on The Law, is recommended to read those on The Gospel, on 1Ti 1:11.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Ver. 19. Because of transgressions ] Which are discovered by the law. Sight of misery must go before sense of mercy. Lex, lux, the law is a light (saith Solomon), which lays all open, as 1Co 14:25 , and threateneth destruction to transgressors.
And it was ordained, &c. ] Therefore it is not to be disrespected, though we cannot attain eternal life by it.
In the hand of a mediator ] That is, of Moses, who was a mediator of that communication of the law to the people, Exo 20:19 . Christ is the only Mediator of expiation. And of Christ alone some take this text.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 24 .] The use and nature of the Law . What (ref.) then (is) the Law (‘ubi audimus Legem nihil valere ad conferendam justitiam, statim obrepunt vari cogitationes: aut igitur esse inutilem, aut contrariam fderi Dei, aut tale quippiam.’ Calv.) ? For the sake of the transgressions [ of it ] (the words have been variously understood. (1) Aug., Calv., Beza, Luth., al., explain it of the detection of transgressions, as in Rom 7 . (2) Chrys., c., Thl., Jer., Erasm., Grot., Rck., Olsh., B.-Crus., De Wette, al., of their repression : , , , . Chrys. (3) Luth., Est., Bengel, al., combine (1) and (2). But it is hardly possible that either of these should be the true explanation. For the Apostle is not now treating of the detection of sin, or of the repression of sin (which latter was besides not the office of the Law, see Rom 5:20 ), but of the Law as a preparation for Christ, Gal 3:23-24 ; and therefore it must be regarded in its propdeutic office, not in its detective or (?) repressive. Now this propdeutic office was, to make sin into TRANSGRESSION, so that what was before not a transgression might now become one. The law then was added (to the promise, which had no such power), for the sake of (in order to bring about as transgressions ) the transgressions (of it) which should be, and thus ( Gal 3:23 ) to shut us up under sin, viz. the transgression of the law. This is nearly Meyer’s view, except that he makes this the exclusive meaning of , which usage will not sustain, cf. 1Jn 3:12 . Ellic.’s view is very close to mine, which he has mistaken) it was superadded (“ does not contradict the assertion of Gal 3:15 , . For the Law was not given as an , but came in as another institution, additional to that already existing.” Meyer) until the seed shall have come (he places himself at the giving of the law and looks on into the future: hence the subjunctive, not the optative: and without , because the time is a certain and definite one), to whom ( Gal 3:16 ) the promise has been (see above) made (the vulgate renders promiserat , sc. Deus: and so Bengel prefers, from reff. active. But the passive suits Gal 3:16 ( ) better, and is justified by reff. Macc. Bretschneider understands it cui demandatum est , viz. to put an end to the law : but this is against N. T. usage of , and absurd, where is so often used in the context. This Seed is of course Christ), being enjoined (the aorist participle does not here denote previous occurrence, but is merely part of an aorist sentence: so Herod. i. 14, : Diod. Sic. xi. 31, . See Hermann on Viger, pp. 772 3. For , cf. note on Act 7:53 , and Hesiod, Op. 274, : it is not promulgate , as Winer) by means of (not, under the attestation of , as Peile, nor in the presence of , as Calov., al.) angels (angels were, according to the Rabbinical view, the enactors and enjoiners of the Law: so Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, . : see also the citations in Wetst.: Heb 2:2 ; and note on Col 2:15 . Of course no explaining away of into men (Moses, Aaron, &c.) as Chrys. (altern.: , ), al., can be allowed. Observe, the angels are not the givers of the Law, but its ministers , and instrumental enactors : the Law, with St. Paul, is always God’s Law; see especially Rom 7:22 ) in the hand of a mediator (viz. MOSES, who came from God to the people with the tables of the law in his hands. Cf. his own words, Deu 5:5 , . , . , : Philo, vita Mos. iii. 19, vol. ii. p. 160, . , . . Schttgen gives numerous examples from the Rabbinical books, in which the name Mediator is given to Moses. But most of the Fathers (not Thdrt.), Bede, Lyra, Calvin, Calov., al., understand Christ to be meant: Schmieder and Schneckenburger, the Angel of the Covenant , the Metatron. Neither of these interpretations however will hold against the above evidence).
Why does the Apostle add this last clause? I am inclined to think with Meyer that it is, not to disparage the law in comparison with the Gospel (as Luth., Elsn., Flatt, Rck., Jowett, &c. &c.) or with the promise (Estius, Schneckenb., De Wette), but to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the law as a preparation for Christ, in answer to the somewhat disparaging question ; If the had been here disparaging, as in Heb 2:2 , or the like must have been expressed, as there, on the other side. And is certainly no disparagement of the old covenant in comparison with the new, for this it has in common with the other. The fact is (see below on Gal 3:20 ), that no such comparison is in question here.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 3:19-22 . THE LAW WAS A TEMPORARY ENACTMENT ORDAINED TO DEAL WITH THE OFFENCES WHICH IT DENOUNCES UNTIL THE COMING OF THE PROMISED SEED. THE GOD FROM WHOM IT PROCEEDED WAS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, BUT HE PROMULGATED IT THROUGH ANGELS AND AN APPOINTED MEDIATOR TO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM AFTER THE FLESH, NOT TO THE ONE CHOSEN SEED. DID IT THEN CONTRAVENE HIS PROMISES? NAY VERILY. IF INDEED IT HAD BEEN CAPABLE OF QUICKENING LIFE, IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED NEW MEANS OF JUSTIFICATION: BUT WHAT IT REALLY DID WAS TO CONVICT ALL ALIKE OF SIN, THAT THE PROMISE MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON FAITH IN CHRIST. . What function then had the Law, if it had absolutely no effect on God’s previous covenant with Abraham? . Our versions render this because of transgressions , ignoring the Greek article. But there could obviously be no transgressions until the Law existed, however grievous the moral degradation. The real meaning is that it was added with a view to the offences which it specifies, thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the Law. Its design is gathered in short from its contents. The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments reveal their own purpose: they were enacted in order to repress the worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness. These sins prevailed before the Law, but by pronouncing them to be definite transgressions it called in the fear of God’s wrath to reinforce the weakness of the moral sense and educate man’s conscience. The same aspect of the Law is forcibly presented in 1Ti 1:9 . Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly . Attention is in both concentrated on the moral Law to the exclusion of the sacrificial and ceremonial. . The alternative reading does not affect the sense. It is assumed on the strength of previous argument that the dispensation of the Law came to an end with the coming of Christ. By the gift of an indwelling spirit He emancipated His faithful disciples from allegiance to an outward Law. : He ( i.e. , God) hath promised ( cf. Rom 4:21 , Heb 12:26 ). never has a passive sense in the N.T. . The N.T. refers three times to the interposition of angels in the promulgation of the Law: God’s intercourse with Moses through the angel of His presence was evidently a common topic in Jewish schools of theology. In Act 7:53 the fact is recorded by way of enhancing the authority of the Law; in Heb 2:2 it is contrasted with God’s revelation in His Son: here it is contrasted with God’s more familiar intercourse with Abraham. He drew nigh to God, and was called the friend of God : but at Sinai the people stood far off, and the Law was made known through the double intervention of angels and of a human mediator. . The term was applied with the utmost latitude to any intermediate between two parties, whether it was the one great Mediator between God and man or any of the subordinate servants of God through whom He makes known His will to men or exercises His authority. The phrase defines its meaning here, for it implies that Moses was put in charge of the promulgation of the Law ( cf. Num 4:28 ; Num 4:37 in LXX), and was God’s appointed agent for the purpose. This interposition of a mediator between God and the people was a marked feature of distinction between the Sinaitic and the patriarchal dispensation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
transgressions. Greek. parabasis. See Rom 4:15. Compare App-128. 1,
the . . . made. Literally it has been promised.
angels. Compare Lout. Gal 33:2. Act 7:53, Heb 2:2,
mediator. Greek. mesites. Here, Gal 3:20; 1Ti 2:5 . Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24,
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19-24.] The use and nature of the Law. What (ref.) then (is) the Law (ubi audimus Legem nihil valere ad conferendam justitiam, statim obrepunt vari cogitationes: aut igitur esse inutilem, aut contrariam fderi Dei, aut tale quippiam. Calv.)? For the sake of the transgressions [of it] (the words have been variously understood. (1) Aug., Calv., Beza, Luth., al., explain it of the detection of transgressions, as in Romans 7. (2) Chrys., c., Thl., Jer., Erasm., Grot., Rck., Olsh., B.-Crus., De Wette, al., of their repression: , , , . Chrys. (3) Luth., Est., Bengel, al., combine (1) and (2). But it is hardly possible that either of these should be the true explanation. For the Apostle is not now treating of the detection of sin, or of the repression of sin (which latter was besides not the office of the Law, see Rom 5:20), but of the Law as a preparation for Christ, Gal 3:23-24; and therefore it must be regarded in its propdeutic office, not in its detective or (?) repressive. Now this propdeutic office was, to make sin into TRANSGRESSION,-so that what was before not a transgression might now become one. The law then was added (to the promise, which had no such power), for the sake of (in order to bring about as transgressions) the transgressions (of it) which should be, and thus (Gal 3:23) to shut us up under sin, viz. the transgression of the law. This is nearly Meyers view, except that he makes this the exclusive meaning of , which usage will not sustain, cf. 1Jn 3:12. Ellic.s view is very close to mine, which he has mistaken) it was superadded ( does not contradict the assertion of Gal 3:15, . For the Law was not given as an , but came in as another institution, additional to that already existing. Meyer) until the seed shall have come (he places himself at the giving of the law and looks on into the future: hence the subjunctive, not the optative: and without , because the time is a certain and definite one), to whom (Gal 3:16) the promise has been (see above) made (the vulgate renders promiserat, sc. Deus: and so Bengel prefers, from reff. active. But the passive suits Gal 3:16 () better, and is justified by reff. Macc. Bretschneider understands it cui demandatum est, viz. to put an end to the law: but this is against N. T. usage of , and absurd, where is so often used in the context. This Seed is of course Christ), being enjoined (the aorist participle does not here denote previous occurrence, but is merely part of an aorist sentence: so Herod. i. 14, : Diod. Sic. xi. 31, . See Hermann on Viger, pp. 772-3. For , cf. note on Act 7:53, and Hesiod, Op. 274, : it is not promulgate, as Winer) by means of (not, under the attestation of, as Peile, nor in the presence of, as Calov., al.) angels (angels were, according to the Rabbinical view, the enactors and enjoiners of the Law: so Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, . : see also the citations in Wetst.: Heb 2:2; and note on Col 2:15. Of course no explaining away of into men (Moses, Aaron, &c.) as Chrys. (altern.: , ), al., can be allowed. Observe, the angels are not the givers of the Law, but its ministers, and instrumental enactors: the Law, with St. Paul, is always Gods Law; see especially Rom 7:22) in the hand of a mediator (viz. MOSES, who came from God to the people with the tables of the law in his hands. Cf. his own words, Deu 5:5, . , . , : Philo, vita Mos. iii. 19, vol. ii. p. 160, . , . . Schttgen gives numerous examples from the Rabbinical books, in which the name Mediator is given to Moses.-But most of the Fathers (not Thdrt.), Bede, Lyra, Calvin, Calov., al., understand Christ to be meant: Schmieder and Schneckenburger, the Angel of the Covenant,-the Metatron. Neither of these interpretations however will hold against the above evidence).
Why does the Apostle add this last clause? I am inclined to think with Meyer that it is,-not to disparage the law in comparison with the Gospel (as Luth., Elsn., Flatt, Rck., Jowett, &c. &c.) or with the promise (Estius, Schneckenb., De Wette), but to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the law as a preparation for Christ, in answer to the somewhat disparaging question ; If the had been here disparaging, as in Heb 2:2, or the like must have been expressed, as there, on the other side. And is certainly no disparagement of the old covenant in comparison with the new, for this it has in common with the other. The fact is (see below on Gal 3:20), that no such comparison is in question here.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 3:19. 😉 Some use this punctuation, ; , … Indeed is often put by itself; sometimes, however, the interrogation is given at length, ; 1Co 10:19 : ; Rom 3:1. What then is [the use of] the law, i.e., one might say, was the law therefore given in vain?- , because of transgressions) that they might be acknowledged and might gain strength. Transgressions committed by men are noticed not so much before, Rom 5:13, as after the giving of the law. The same word occurs at Rom 4:15, where see the note; and in the plural at Heb 9:15. The antithesis is continueth, Gal 3:10. The thing itself is explained at Gal 3:21-22 : namely, all are concluded under sin.-, it was put, given) He does not say, put instead of, substituted [for the promise]. Many have ,[26] but is more consistent with Gal 3:15.-, should come) comp. came, Gal 3:23.- , the seed) viz., believers of the New Testament, to whom is given the fulfilment of the promise; Gal 3:22.- , to whom the promise was made) or rather to whom God promised; comp. , Rom 4:21; Heb 12:26.-, ordained) not ;[27] comp. Gal 3:15, [, addeth thereto any new ordinance].- , , by angels, in the hand of a mediator) A double mediation. Angels being the representatives of God, Heb 2:2 : a mediator standing as representative of the people. God delegated the law to angels as something rather alien to Him and severe: He reserved the promise to Himself, and gave and dispensed it according to His own goodness. Moses was the mediator; hence it is frequently said, , by the hand of Moses. We have the definition of a mediator, Deu 5:5. Moses, as a mediator, is quite different from Christ-the one keeps back [repels]-the other brings forward [attracts].
[26] is read by AB (judging from silence) C, both Syr. Versions, etc. by GD() corrected later, fg Vulg. (posita est), Iren. 182, 318.-ED.
[27] Ordained as a new thing to supersede the promise.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 3:19
Gal 3:19
When then is the law?-If the promised blessing to all nations could not come through the law of Moses, what end or purpose did the law serve?
It was added because of transgressions,-It was because the children of Israel transgressed the will of God and sinned that the law of Moses was added.
till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made;-It was added because of the sins of the people, to train and fit and qualify them to receive the seed to whom the promise was made-Jesus Christ. This is exemplified in the travels of the children of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. They were brought to the border of Canaan. Had they been prepared to enter, they could have done so at once. By transgression they were unfitted to enter. A sojourn in the wilderness of forty years was added to fit and prepare them to enter. They were not fitted for the blessing, so the law was added, that in obeying it they might be trained for the coming seed. This may carry the idea that had Abrahams seed being faithful the promised seed would have appeared sooner. The transgression rendered them unfit to receive him, so his coming was postponed and the law was added to train and fit them for his coming.
and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.-Stephen said to the Sanhedrin: Ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not. (Act 7:53). And again, it is said: For if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward. (Heb 2:2). These passages show that according to apostolic interpretation God gave the law to Moses, not by speaking in his own person, but by speaking through angels whom he sent to Moses.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Lecture 8
The Law As Child-Leader Until Christ
Gal 3:19-29
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. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. (vv. 19-29)
We have been considering in our studies of the earlier part of this chapter the relationship that the law had, the law as given at Sinai, to the unconditional promise of grace which God gave to Abraham 430 years before, and we have seen that the law coming in afterward could not add to nor take away from the covenant already made. That naturally leads to the question of verse 19, Wherefore then serveth the law? If the law did not add anything to what God had given by promise to Abraham, and surely it could not take anything from it, what was its purpose? Why did God give it at all? The apostle answers, 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. I think perhaps we may understand it better if we read it, It was added with a view to transgressions, in order that it might make men see the specific character of transgression, and thus deepen in each soul a sense of his sinfulness and his need.
We are all so ready to excuse ourselves, to say if we had known better we would not have done the wrong thing. How often you hear people say, I do the best I know, and endeavor to do the best I can. But where has a man or woman ever been found who could honestly utter those sentences? Have you always done the best you knew? Have you always done the best you could? If you are absolutely honest before God, you know that you have not. Again and again we have all sinned against light and knowledge, we have known far better than we have done. Thus we have failed to glorify God, and by going contrary to His revealed will we have proven ourselves not only sinners but transgressors.
Both in the original language of the New Testament and that of the Old Testament, there is a word for sin which literally means to miss the mark. I remember having this brought before me when working among the Laguna Indians of New Mexico. One day my interpreter, a bright Indian, said, I am going to spend the day hunting; would you like to go with me?
I am no hunter, but I went with him for the exercise. He had a fine new rifle which he was very eager to try out. He gave evidence of his prowess with that weapon. Standing on one side of a canyon he would say, Do you see that creature moving yonder?
At first I could not possibly see it, but as he pointed it out I would see something that was just a moving speck away over on the opposite wall.
He would say, Wait a minute, and level his rifle, and the next moment I would see the creature that looked like a small speck leap into the air and then drop down dead. He was a wonderful shot with a rifle, but when we got home he said to me, I want to show you what I can do with our old weapon, for I have kept up with the bow and arrow. That seems so typical of our people that I have wanted to keep it up.
So we went into the field, and the Indian hunter set up a very small twig of a willow, and enacted a scene something like that described in Scotts Ivanhoe. He fitted the arrow to the string and said, Now I am going to split that twig in two. Letting fly the arrow, he shot right by the twig but did not touch it. Oh, he said, I have sinned.
For the moment I did not ask him why he used that expression.
Then he said, I didnt take the wind into account, as I should have done. He fitted another arrow to the string, and let it fly, and split that twig right in two. I could hardly believe that any one could do such a thing.
He said, There! I did not sin that time.
I said to him, Why did you use that term sin? You were not doing anything wrong when you did not hit that wand. Why did you say, I sinned, and when you did hit it, I didnt sin that time?
Oh, he said, I was thinking in Gowaik (that is the language of the Laguna Indians) and speaking in English. In our language to sin means to miss the mark.
That is a very singular thing, I said, for in the Greek and Hebrew to sin is to miss the mark.
That is what is involved in the expression, All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). But in the law we have something more than that. God has set up a standard of righteousness. The law with its ten definite ordinances, Thou shalts and thou shalt nots, makes known to man exactly what God demands of him. Now if man sins knowing the revealed will of God, if he fails to obey that law, it is evident that he is not only a sinner but a transgressor. He has definitely violated a specific command of God; he has crossed over the line, as it were, and, Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful (Rom 7:13). That was one reason for which God gave the law-that men might have a deeper sense of the seriousness of self-will which is the very essence of sin, of rebellion against God. When God gave the law He gave it in the hands of a mediator, and Moses sprinkled the book of the covenant and also the people with the blood of the covenant, testifying to the fact that if man fails to keep his side of the covenant he must die, but also signifying that God would provide a Savior, a Redeemer.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Two contracting parties suggest the thought of the need of a mediator, but when God gave His promise to Abraham there was only one. God gave the Word, and there was nothing to do on Abrahams part but to receive it. He did not covenant with God that he would do thus and so in order that Gods promise might be fulfilled, but God spoke directly to him and committed Himself when He said, In thee shall all nations be blessed (Gal 3:8). The question arises, Is the law against the promises of God by bringing in certain terms which were not in the original promise? Does the law set the promises to one side? God forbid. But a certain principle was laid down in the law which declared that the man that doeth them shall live in them (v. 12), and if any man had been found to do these things perfectly he could have obtained life on the ground of the law. But the law said to man, The soul that sinneth, it shall die (Eze 18:4), and no man was ever found who could keep it. If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
A gentleman said to me in California one night, I do not like this idea of being saved by Another. All my life I have never wanted to feel indebted to other people for anything. I do not want anybodys charity, and when it comes to spiritual things I do not want to be saved through the merits of anybody else. According to what you said tonight, if I keep the law perfectly I will live and will owe nothing to any one. Is that right?
I said, Well, yes, it is.
He said, I am going to start in on that.
I said, How old are you?
Around forty.
Suppose you came to years of accountability somewhere around twelve; you are nearly thirty years too late to begin, and Scripture says, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (v. 10). Therefore, because the law cannot give life, you will never be able to earn anything on that ground. He went away very disgruntled.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin. If God has concluded all under sin, must all men be lost? No, all have been concluded under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. God would have all men recognize their sinfulness in order that all might realize their need and come to Him proving His grace. He puts all men on one common level. Romans says, There is no difference: for all have sinned (3:22-23). Men imagine that there are a great many differences. One man says, Do you mean to tell me that there is no difference between a moral man and a poor reprobate in the gutter? Of course there is a great deal of difference, not only as far as the standard of society is concerned, but also as to their own happiness and the estimate of their neighbors; but when it comes to a question of righteousness, There is no difference: for all have sinned. All may not have sinned in the same way, they may not have committed exactly the same transgressions, but all have sinned, all have violated Gods law.
A gentleman once said to a cousin of his, I do not like that idea about there being no difference; it is repugnant to me. Do you mean to tell me that having tried all my life to live a decent and respectable life, God does not see any difference between me and people living lives of sin and iniquity?
She said to him, Suppose that you and I were walking down the street together, and we passed some place of interest, perhaps a museum, that we were eager to see. We went to the window and inquired about the admission fee, and were told it was $1.00. I looked into my purse and said, Oh, I have left my money at home; I have only 25 cents. You looked at your money and found you had only 70 cents. Which one of us would go in first?
Well, he said, under such circumstances neither of us would get in.
There would be no difference, and yet you have a great deal more money than I; but as far as having what was necessary to pay our way in, there is no difference.
God demands absolute righteousness of sinners before they enter heaven. There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth (Rev 21:27). You may have your 95 cents worth of righteousness while I do not have a nickels worth of it, but neither of us can get in unless we have our hundred cents, and there is no difference. There is none righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10). Remember that God has said that, not some zealous, earnest preacher or evangelist, but God Himself by the Holy Spirit. And the law was given to demonstrate that fact. But if men take the place of unrighteousness before God, if they take the place of being lost sinners, and own their sin and guilt, what then? The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. In other words, when men come to the place where they realize the fact that they cannot earn eternal life by any effort of their own, and are ready to receive it as a free gift, that moment it is theirs. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (Joh 3:36). Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life (Joh 5:24).
But now the apostle shows another use for the law. Paul says in verse 23, But before faith came, that is, before the faith, because it was made known clearly and definitely that God was justifying men by faith alone in His blessed Son, we were kept under the law-he speaks now as a Jew-we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. The Gentiles at that time did not have the law, but the Jews did. God gave the Jew that law, and he was looked upon as a minor child under rules and regulations. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. That word rendered schoolmaster is exactly the word that we have Anglicized by the term pedagogue, a school teacher. But the original word was not exactly a school teacher, it really means a child leader, a child director, and was the name applied in ancient Greek households to a slave who had the care of the minor children. He was to watch over the morals of the child, protect him from association with others who were not fit for his companionship, and take him day by day from the house to the schoolroom. He there turned him over to the schoolmaster, but at the end of the day he would get him and bring him back home again. The apostle says here, and very beautifully, I think, The law was our child leader, our child director, until Christ. That is, God did not leave His people without a code of morals until Jesus came to set before us the most wonderful moral code the world has ever known, and the law served in a very real way to protect and keep them from much of the immorality, iniquity, vileness, and corruption found in the heathen life round about them. As long as the people lived in obedience, in any measure, to that law, they were saved from a great deal of wickedness and evil.
The law was our [child leader], perhaps not exactly to bring us to Christ, but, The law was our [child leader until] Christ. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17). Now Christ has come we have come to the door of the schoolroom of grace, and we have learned the blessed truth of justification by faith alone in Him whom God has set forth to be the propitiation for our sins. We are no longer under a child director.
We are here told that we are not only freed from the law as a means of attempting to secure justification, but are also freed from that law as a means of sanctification, for we have so much higher a standard in Christ risen from the dead, and are to be occupied with Him. As we are taken up with Him the grace of God teaches us that, Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Tit 2:12). For instance, suppose I as a Christian by some strange mishap had never even heard of the Ten Commandments. Suppose it were possible that I had never known of them, but on the other hand I had been taught the wonderful story of the gospel, and had been entrusted with some of the books of the New Testament showing how a Christian ought to live. If I walk in obedience to this revelation, I live on a higher, on a holier, plane than he who only had the Ten Commandments. Anyone having the wonderful teaching that came from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the marvelous unfolding of the epistles showing what a Christian ought to be, has this new standard of holiness, which is not the law given at Sinai, but the risen Christ at Gods right hand, and as I am walking in obedience to Him my life will be a righteous life, and so, After that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Then he adds, Ye are all the children [sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus, from Him we receive life. To whom does God communicate eternal life? To all who put their trust in His blessed Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life (1Jn 5:12). And so we can see why our Lord Jesus stresses, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (Joh 3:3). There must be the impartation of the divine life. This makes us members of Gods family-a new and wonderful relationship.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. He probably has two thoughts in mind here. Outwardly we put on Christ in our baptism. That ordinance indicates that we professedly have received the Lord Jesus Christ, but I think also he has in view the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and by that we are actually made members of Christ and, in the fullest, deepest sense, we put on Christ. And now as members of that new creation, there is neither Jew nor Greek, national distinctions no longer come in. In this connection there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. He does not ignore natural distinctions. Of course we still retain our natural place in society, we remain servants or masters, we remain male or female, but as to our place in the new creation, God takes none of these distinctions into account. All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are made one in Him, members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones (Eph 5:30). How we need to remember this!
Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. To be in Christ and to be Christs, comes to exactly the same thing, all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christs [if you belong to Him], then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. Because you too have believed God as Abraham did (Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [Rom 4:3]), it is counted to you for righteousness. And so every believer forms part of Abrahams spiritual seed. There is both the spiritual and the natural seed of Abraham. They which be of faith are blessed with [believing] Abraham (Gal 3:9). I hope we are clear as to this distinction between law and grace.
Some years ago I took with me to Oakland, California, a Navajo Indian. One Sunday evening he went to our young peoples meeting. They were talking about this epistle to the Galatians, about law and grace, but they were not very clear about it, and finally one turned to the Indian and said, I wonder whether our Indian friend has anything to say about this.
He rose to his feet and said, Well, my friends, I have been listening very carefully, because I am here to learn all I can in order to take it back to my people. I do not understand what you are talking about, and I do not think you do yourselves. But concerning this law and grace, let me see if I can make it clear. I think it is like this. When Mr. Ironside brought me from my home we took the longest railroad journey I ever took. We got out at Barstow, and there I saw the most beautiful railroad station with a hotel above it that I have ever seen. I walked all around and saw at one end a sign, Do not spit here. I looked at that sign and then looked down at the ground and saw many had spitted there, and before I think what I am doing I have spitted myself. Isnt that strange when the sign say, Do not spit here? I come to Oakland and go to the home of the lady who invited me to dinner today and I am in the nicest home I have ever been in my life. Such beautiful furniture and carpets I hate to step on them. I sank into a comfortable chair, and the lady said, Now, John, you sit there while I go out and see whether the maid has dinner ready. I look around at the beautiful pictures, at the grand piano, and I walk all around those rooms. I am looking for a sign; the sign I am looking for is, Do not spit here, but I look around those two beautiful drawing rooms, and cannot find a sign like this. I think, What a pity when this is such a beautiful home to have people spitting all over it-too bad they dont put up a sign! So I look all over that carpet but cannot find that anybody has spitted there. What a funny thing! Where the sign says, Do not spit, a lot of people spitted; here where there is no sign, nobody spitted. Now I understand! That sign is law, but inside the home it is grace. They love their beautiful home and want to keep it clean. I think that explains this law and grace business, and he sat down.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Chapter 17
Wherefore Then Serveth The Law?
Gal 3:19-29
False teachers crept into the Church at Galatia and convinced many that they must seek to live by the law, that the believers justification and sanctification were not accomplished by grace alone. They taught we must be saved by grace, by faith in Christ; but we must also keep the law, if we would be saved. Paul boldly and dogmatically asserted that there can be no mixture of law and grace.
Paul could not have stated himself more clearly than he did in Rom 11:6 and Gal 5:1-4. In those two places, he declares If you add your works to the grace of God, for justification, for sanctification, or for righteousness of any kind before God, then you deny the grace of God altogether and are lost, totally ignorant of the grace of God, without Christ, and without hope before the Holy Lord God. In Gal 2:21, having dashed in pieces the notion of mixing law and grace, he makes this bold, dogmatic assertion – I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law (justifying righteousness or sanctifying righteousness), then Christ is dead in vain!
He simply could not have used stronger language to state his case. He declares that those who teach that righteousness may be obtained before God by our personal obedience to the law both frustrate the grace of God and assert that Christ died for nothing. With that as the background, read Gal 3:19-29.
“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. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
These eleven verses of Inspiration tell us the purpose of Gods law. Paul, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, anticipated the carping of the legalists who would denounce his doctrine. He knew they would come along and say, If the law has nothing to do with the believer, if it has nothing to do with our justification and nothing to do with our sanctification, if it is not to be used as a rule of life, why was it given? What is its use? That is the question he answers in these verses. Wherefore Then Serveth The Law?
Added Because of Transgressions
The law was added because of transgressions. The law of God, (the ten commandments and the legal precepts of worship, civil government, and daily life given in the Old Testament), was never intended to be a means of righteousness, a means of grace, or a means of salvation. It was not given as a code of moral ethics. It was not given as the believers rule of life. It was not given as a motive for Christian service. It was not given as a measure of sanctification. It was not given to be the grounds of our assurance. It was not given as a basis for reward in heaven. It was never the intent, purpose, and use of the law to make sinners holy, righteous, and just before God. The Book of God is crystal clear in its language in this regard. Believers are not under the law, but under grace (Rom 6:14-15). It is impossible to be under both. We are dead to the law (Rom 7:4). Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4)
The purpose of Gods holy law is to identify and expose mans sin, shutting him up to Christ alone for acceptance with God. It is written, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19. “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom 5:20).
Before anyone is converted, he must be convinced of his sin and guilt. And so we preach the holy law of God to convince men of their sin. Before anyone is given the newness of life in Christ, he must be slain by the law. The law is Gods deep cutting plow, by which he breaks up the fallow ground of a mans heart and conscience, and prepares the soil for the gospel. This plowing is a painful and difficult work, but must be done.
Given Until
Look at the next line in Gal 3:19. The law was given until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. The Seed spoken of here is Christ. The promise spoken of is the promise God the Father made to God the Son before the world began. That promise was the promised gift of grace, salvation, and eternal life by the Holy Spirit to his elect. It was a promise made on condition of Christs obedience and death, upon condition of righteousness established by him for us as our Substitute.
I am not guessing about this. The context declares it. The Mosaic law given at Mt. Sinai was given to Israel in the hands of a mediator who was but a man. But the promise was given to Christ our Mediator from God our Father; and these two are one God. Look at the Scriptures. That is the meaning of Pauls words here in Gal 3:20 “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” God the Father promised eternal life to his elect before the world began. But he made the promise to Christ as our Covenant Surety (Tit 1:1-3). We who believe have obtained this promise of eternal life in Christ because the Lord Jesus Christ purchased it and effectually obtained it for the seed of Abraham, Abrahams true, spiritual seed (Gal 3:13-14; Heb 9:12; Heb 2:16).
No Law Righteousness
“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal 3:21). What a plain statement this is! It is utterly irrefutable. The law, which was given by Moses, cannot be contrary to the promise of eternal life to Gods elect before the world began. It is absurd, monstrously absurd, to imagine that God would have sacrificed his darling Son for nothing. If righteousness could be obtained by us doing something God would never have sacrificed his Son at Calvary to bring in righteousness for us!
Kept Under the Law
Now, look at Gal 3:22-23. “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.”
The law was not given to makes us righteous, but to shut us up to Christ. The law of God, set forth in Holy Scripture, concludes all under sin. We are all by birth, by nature, by choice, and by practice under sin (Rom 3:19-23). We are under sins dominion, corruption, penalty, and curse. The reason for this is That the promise (the same promise he has been discussing throughout the chapter, the promise of grace, salvation, and eternal life) by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Read that last sentence carefully and understand the gospel. Grace, salvation, and eternal life come to chosen sinners upon the ground of and because of the faith, faithfulness, or faithful obedience of Jesus Christ as our Substitute.
It was Christ alone who brought in everlasting righteousness for us. It was Christ alone who redeemed us. It was Christ alone who put away our sins. It was Christ alone who made atonement for us by satisfying the justice of God with his own blood. It was Christ alone who, with his own blood, obtained eternal redemption for us. Our faith in him has no part in the accomplishment of these things!
What does faith do? Nothing! Faith receives. Believing God, every sinner who believes has been given grace, salvation, and eternal life by God the Holy Spirit because God the Father promised it and God the Son purchased it! Salvation is of The Lord!
Before faith came, that is before we came to trust Christ, before God gave us faith in his Son, we were kept under the law. As we read in Ephesians 2 We were by nature children of wrath, just like everyone else. Though we were justified from eternity by Gods decree and justified at Calvary by Christs blood atonement, we knew nothing about it. We lived as wrathful children, hating God, under a sense of guilt, as cursed, condemned sinners, without hope. Our first convictions, our first thoughts toward God, filled us with terror. The law condemned us, condemned us justly. When the law came, sin revived and I died! That is what Paul said (Rom 7:9).
Shut Up to Faith
Why? The Spirit of God tells us. We were thus (by the terror of the law in our consciences damning us) shut up to Christ. Look at it in Gal 3:23-24. Shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
The laws purpose, function, and use is to bring sinners to Christ. Once it has served that purpose it has no other function. That is not my opinion, interpretation, or theological view. That is exactly what God the Holy Spirit tells us in Gal 3:25. “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
What does that mean? It means exactly what you think it means. It means spiritually what Martin Luther King proclaimed with the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, Im free at last! So it is with the law. Once the sinner has come to Christ, he is free from the law. The law has no more dominion over him (Rom 6:14-15; Rom 7:4; Rom 10:4).
Faith Alone
Salvation comes to sinners, in its entirety, by faith in Christ, by faith alone, without the works of the law. Is that, or is it not the doctrine of Holy Scripture? Read the Gal 3:26. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul took the Galatians at their word. Because they professed faith in Christ, he charitably assumed that their profession was genuine. Therefore, he says, Ye are the children of God by faith in Christ.
Paul is not suggesting that our adoption into the family of God is the result of our believing, not at all. It is just the other way around. Our faith in Christ is the result of our adoption. We were adopted by God before the world began in divine predestination (Eph 1:5). It was our adoption that sent the Holy Spirit to us in effectual, regenerating grace. Our adoption in election was the cause of Christs atonement and the Spirits call (Gal 4:3-7; 1Jn 3:1).
Baptized Into Christ
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). Paul does not imply here there were some in the church who were baptized and some who were not, or that there were some Christians who submitted to the gospel ordinance of immersion in the name of Christ and some who did not. His language here is simply that there might be some of them, who though baptized in water, yet did not know Christ. John Gill explains the text correctly, saying, Those who are truly and rightly baptized, who are proper subjects of it, and to whom it is administered in a proper manner, are baptized into Christ.
Paul is not saying that by baptism we are brought into union with Christ, but into communion with him. When baptism is an act of faith in and obedience to Christ, believers are baptized in the name of Christ, by the authority of Christ, according to the doctrine of Christ, in obedience to the command of Christ, into the body of Christ, and in hope of the resurrection with Christ.
And all who have truly been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, both before we were baptized and when we were baptized. Before we were baptized we put him on as the Lord our righteousness by faith. We put him on as our robe of righteousness. When we were baptized we put on Christ by public profession, declaring him to be our Lord and King, declaring ourselves to be his voluntary servants forever, resolving to walk with him in the newness of life. The allusion, Gill suggests, is to the priests putting off their common clothes, and then bathing or dipping themselves in water, and putting on the garments of the priesthood before they entered on their service.
One In Christ
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). All who are in Christ are one in him. In Christ all social, economic, racial barriers are dissolved. The only place in the world where race and place make no difference is in Christ, in the church of Christ. Grace alone can make sinful men and women truly one. And Gods elect really are truly one in Christ.
In Gal 3:29 the apostle brings his argument to a tremendous conclusion. And if ye be Christs, nothing else really matters. If you belong to Christ by the Fathers election, the Sons redemption, the Spirits call, and your own faith in him, if you believe on the Son of God, all is well. If not youre going to hell. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed. This is what that means. If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are the object of Gods love, the recipient of his grace, and heirs according to the promise. If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are Gods forever and he is yours forever! You are heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, according to the promise, according to the promise of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, made to his Son before the world began!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Wherefore then
The answer is sixfold:
(1) The law was added because of transgressions, i.e. to give to sin the character of transgression.
(a) Men had been sinning before Moses, but in the absence of law their sins were not put to their account. Rom 5:13. The law gave to sin the character of “transgression,” i.e. of personal guilt. (b) Also, since men not only continued to transgress after the law was given, but were provoked to transgress by the very law that forbade it Rom 7:8, the law conclusively proved the inveterate sinfulness of man’s nature Rom 7:11-13.
(2) The law, therefore, “concluded all under sin” Rom 3:19; Rom 3:20; Rom 3:23.
(3) The law was an ad interim dealing, “till the seed should come”. Gal 3:19.
(4) The law shut sinful man up to faith as the only avenue of escape. Gal 3:23.
(5) The law was to the Jews what the pedagogue was in a Greek household, a ruler of children in their minority, and it had this character “unto” i.e. until Christ Gal 3:24.
(6) Christ having come, the believer is no longer under the pedagogue. Gal 3:25
because of for the sake, i.e. in order that sin might be made manifest as transgression. See, Rom 4:15; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
then: Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2, Rom 7:7-13
It was added: Gal 3:21-24, Deu 4:8, Deu 4:9, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20, Luk 16:31, Joh 5:45-47, Joh 15:22, Rom 2:13, Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21, Rom 7:7-13, 1Ti 1:8, 1Ti 1:9
till: Gal 3:16, Gal 3:25, Gal 4:1-4
by: Deu 33:2, Act 7:53, Heb 2:2, Heb 2:5
in: Exo 20:19-22, Exo 24:1-12, Exo 34:27-35, Lev 15:32, Deu 5:5, Deu 5:22-33, Deu 9:13-20, Deu 9:25-29, Deu 18:15-19, Psa 106:23, Joh 1:17, Act 7:38, The Apostle, having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he derogated too much from the law, and thereby rendered it useless – he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given.
Reciprocal: Exo 19:24 – lest Exo 24:3 – All the words Deu 18:18 – like unto Isa 41:8 – the seed Joh 7:19 – not Act 6:14 – change Gal 3:23 – faith came Gal 4:3 – when Heb 8:6 – the mediator
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 3:19. ;-What then is the law? What thanne the lawe? (Wycliffe.) is not for -wherefore (Schott, Brown, Wieseler, Bagge, and Jatho); nor is , as the latter thinks, the natural supplement, being quite sufficient. The passages adduced in proof by Wieseler have a verb expressed, and one of a different character. The is the neuter, employed in reference to the abstract nature of the subject. It often occurs with such a meaning. Bernhardy, p. 336. The law-not the ceremonial law alone (Gwynne)-is not useless, as might be conjectured; it is in no sense , (Chrysostom), for-
-on account of the transgressions it was superadded. The compound verb is to be preferred, on preponderant authority, to the simple of the Received Text, which has little in its favour-D, F, and the Latin versions (posita est), Clement, Origen, and Eusebius in some quotations. There may have been a temptation to substitute the simple verb, as the compound might seem opposed to of Gal 3:15-addeth thereto.
The idiomatic , originally in gratiam-in favour of, for the sake of-came at length to signify generally on account of, a definite purpose being involved. Many examples may be found in Ellendt (Lex. Soph. sub voce), who explains it as in gratiam alicujus, inde alicujus aut hominis aut rei causa significans, quanquam minime semper gratia adsignificatur; and in Ast (Lex. Platon.), who says: Praepositionis instar ita ponitur, ut verti possit causa et propter. Various meanings have been assigned to the expression, on account of the transgressions.
1. Many give it the sense of to restrain transgressions-Clement, Homil. 11.16, -the result being that He may present them pure in the day of universal judgment. Many of the fathers and the older expositors held this opinion, followed by Neander, Olshausen, De Wette, Baur, and others. This is one of the ends of law generally, since it commands obedience to its statutes and threatens a penalty on transgressors. But the term employed is , not , and implies in itself the existence of a law or legal standard, without which sins could scarcely bear such an appellation: where no law is, there is no transgression.
2. Some attach the meaning to the phrase-the law was superadded for the sake of transgressions, to multiply them. Alford, Meyer, Wieseler, Lipsius, and Hofmann, who put it in various phases. But such a view is extreme, for it is the application to a passing phrase such as this of the formal argument of the apostle in a theological section of the Epistle to the Rom 5:20, etc. It is true that the law does this in various ways, for it irritates man’s fallen and perverse nature, and brings about that love of forbidden things which the apostle pictures in Romans 7 -ut transgressio sit et abundet. Luther.
But 3. probably the phrase means that the law multiplies transgressions chiefly by detecting them, and bringing men to a knowledge of them. I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; sin that it appear sin; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Rom 7:7-13. So Calvin, Winer, Matthies, Windischmann, Ellicott. Meyer’s objection to this opinion, resting on his view of the uniform meaning of , falls to the ground. This view is thus the virtual basis of the one enunciated before it, as it is principally by the knowledge of transgressions that they are multiplied. For the law so instructs in the nature of sin, that what before was reckoned innocent is seen to be transgression, and what was regarded as trivial comes to be recognised as exceeding sinful. Through this detection transgressions are of necessity multiplied in number and intensified in enormity. Gwynne’s notion is inadmissible, that the phrase refers to the work of the priesthood in offering sacrifice on behalf of sins. It must not be forgotten, too, that the law is here regarded as an intermediate dispensation, as is intimated in the following clause-, . The purpose of the superaddition of the law was connected with the coming of Christ-that is, to prepare for it, by so deepening the sense of sinfulness that men, convicted of so often breaking it, could not look to it for righteousness, but must be shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. The Mosaic dispensation, provisionally introduced between the Abrahamic promise and the coming of the Seed, was a preparative or an educative instrument, not merely in its typical services as foreshowing the realities of atonement and pardon, but in the ethical power of multiplying transgressions through the light which it cast upon them, and of convincing those who were under it of the necessity of Christ’s advent in order to release them from its curse. The function of the law was to produce profounder views of the number and heinousness of sins, as preparatory to the appearance of Him who came to deliver from its awful penalty, so that, under the pressure of such convictions, His redemption might be welcomed as a needed and an adapted blessing. Thus the law did not add to the promise, but was a different institute altogether; as Meyer remarks, it was not an , or anything connected with the of the fifteenth verse. And it was also temporary-
-until the Seed to whom the promise has been made shall have come. This use of the subjunctive proceeds upon this, that the apostle throws himself back to the time when the law was given, which thereby becomes to him present time, and from it he looks down into the future, though historically that future was now past time. Winer, 41, 1; Jelf, 841. The particle is not used, as the period referred to is a definite one, without any contingency. Stallbaum, Plato, Phaedo 62 C, Opera, vol. i. p. 32; Hermann, de Part. , pp. 110-12, omittitur in re certa designanda; Klotz-Devarius, 2.368, non adjuncta ubi eventus per se ponitur. The Seed is Christ-, to whom, not , but the ordinary dative (Winer, Usteri), as Gal 3:16 shows. It seems better to take the verb as passive, for then it is in harmony with , Gal 3:16. The Vulgate has promiserat, and Bengel and Flatt prefer it. Compare 2Ma 4:27 and Rom 4:21, Heb 12:26, in both which places the Authorized Version prefers the active. Bretschneider in his Lexicon gives the meaning, cui demandatum est ut legem mosaicam tollat-a meaning unauthorized by New Testament usage and unnatural in the context. It serves no purpose, as in many editions of the New Testament, to make this clause a parenthesis. The same sense might have been expressed by two finite verbs and a conjunction. Hermann, Vigerus, vol. ii. p. 614, London 1824. The next clauses point out the mode in which the law was superadded, and the first is-
-being ordained by means of angels-ordinata, Vulgate; disposita, Clarom.,-the aorist denoting time contemporaneous with the former verb . The phrase is to enact a law: , Hesiod, Opera et Dies 276, ed. Goettling; , Plato, Leg. 746 E. Comp. Jdg 5:9. So in his address Stephen says that they received the law -at the enactments of angels, as in Mat 12:41. But the word will not bear the sense of promulgate, as many have wrongly conjectured. The phrase signifies by the instrumentality of angels, whatever that instrumentality may mean, and is not to be diluted into in the presence of (Calovius, Loesner), or under the attestation of (Peile). Nor can signify men-messengers (Zegerus), nor priests, , as Chrysostom alternatively puts it. The angels are not the source of the law in any sense (Schultess); implies only instrumentality. But in some way or other as God’s instruments they enacted it, so that it was -the word spoken by angels. Heb 2:2; Winer, 47, 1. The divine precepts were by them made audible to the people, or they had mysterious connection with the awful phenomena which enshrined the majesty of the Lawgiver. Josephus holds fast the distinction- . Antiq. 15.5, 3. It is one thing to originate a law, and a different thing to enjoin it. The special point is, that the law was not given immediately by God, but mediately by angels-they came between God and the people; but Jehovah, without any intervening agency, and directly, spoke the promise to Abraham. No allusion is made to angels in the portions of Exodus which relate the giving of the law. The first reference is in the last blessing of Moses, Deu 33:2 : The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints: from His right hand went a fiery law for them. The special clause is -He came from the midst of thousands of holy ones. But the Seventy had a different reading, or fused together two readings, and translate, ,-adding, . Not a few expositors follow the Sept. rendering, which requires the pointing , and render, from the heights of Kadesh; but the Hebrew will not bear such a rendering. Aquila has ; Symmachus, ; the Vulgate, cum eo sanctorum millia. So also the Targums. The common rendering is the best. The angels appear already in connection with God, Gen 28:12; and as God’s host, Gen 32:1-2. The holy ones of the Hebrew text cannot be the Jewish people, as is thought by Luther, Vatablus, and Dathe; for He came not with them, but to them. Again, in Psa 68:17 there is a similar allusion: The chariots of God are two myriads, thousands repeated (or thousands on thousands): the Lord is with them, Sinai is in His holy place. Jewish tradition gradually enlarged on these hints, though the word angels occurs in none of the original clauses, and made such a romance out of them as may be found in Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum, vol. 1.308, etc. The mention of angels in connection with the law is not specially meant to shed lustre upon it, as in Act 7:38 and Heb 2:2; but the object here is to show that the employment of angels-glorious though these beings are-in the enactment of it proves its inferiority to the promise, which was directly given by Jehovah in sole majesty to Abraham, no one coming between them. And for the same end it is added-
-in the hand of a mediator. Meyer takes the clause in a historical sense: Moses having received from God the tables of the law, carried them to the people. Exo 32:11; Exo 34:29. But idiomatic usage shows that has much the same meaning as , the Hebrew phrase , which it often represents in the Septuagint, having this general signification. Exo 35:29; Lev 10:11; Lev 26:46; Num 4:38; Num 4:41-45; Num 15:23; Jos 14:2; 2Ch 33:8; in all which places the phrase is by the hand of Moses. Compare 1Ki 12:15, Jer 37:2, Pro 26:6. As the giving of the law is described here, there can be no doubt that Moses is the mediator, whatever might be the position of the high priest in subsequent times. Moses thus describes his own mediation: I stood between you and the Lord at that time- . Sept. Deu 5:5; Deu 5:27. Philo says, that on hearing the sound of the idolatry connected with the worship of the golden calf, and receiving the divine command, he sprang down to be a mediator and reconciler- . Vita Mosis, 3.19. The name mediator, , is often given to Moses in the rabbinical writings. See Schoettgen and Wetstein. The allusions in Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24, also plainly recognise the mediatorship of Moses. Origen started the opinion that the mediator was Christ, and was followed by Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, Victorinus, and others; but Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others rightly maintain that the mediator was Moses, and the most of modern commentators adhere to the same view. Schmieder takes him to be the angel of the covenant (Nova Interpretatio, Gal 3:19-20), as does also Schneckenburger. This angel is often referred to in the Old Testament, but there is no ground for the opinion that He is referred to here, and in those simple terms. But Moses did the work of a mediator-went from the people to God, and came from God to the people; the first function more priestly, and the second more prophetic, in character. Through his mediatorial intervention the law was superadded, but the promise was made by Jehovah to Abraham without any one between them. On the other hand, it is held by Calvin, Meyer, Wieseler, Winer, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Alford, that the apostle refers to angels and a mediator in order to illustrate the glory of the law. But even in Heb 2:2, the word spoken by angels is put in contrast to the salvation spoken by the Lord, and is regarded as inferior to it, the argument being from the less to the greater. The contrast formally stated there is implied here-the majus did not need to be expressed: the covenant was confirmed by God; God gave it to Abraham by promise; God is one. Is the law against the promises of God? It is no objection to say that the employment of a mediator is no mark of inferiority, since the new dispensation has its Mediator too; for, first, the contrast is not between the law and the gospel, but between the law and the earlier promise; and secondly, the Mediator of the new covenant is the Son of God-no mere man, as Moses; and, as Professor Lightfoot says, the argument here rests in effect on our Lord’s divinity as its foundation. Nor could it be unwise, as Meyer argues, in the apostle to depreciate the law in writing to those who were zealots about it; for he only states in these two clauses two facts about it which they could not gainsay, and he quietly leaves them to draw the inference. Nor is his object to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the law as a preparation for Christ; for that is not the theme in hand-it is the relation of the law superinduced because of transgressions, to the older promise, and the function of a law as a paedagogue is afterwards introduced. Granting that its enactment by angels glorifies the law, it is yet inferior to a word immediately spoken by the God of angels. The argument of the verse is:
1. The law has no organic relation to the promise, was neither a new form of it nor a codicil to it, did not spring out of it, but was superadded as a foreign and unallied element.
2. The law has functional connection with sin; the promise regards an inheritance.
3. The law was provisional and temporary only; the promise has no limitation of time, and is not to be superseded.
4. The law was given by a species of double intervention-the instrumentality of angels and the mediation of Moses; the promise was given directly and immediately from God’s own lips, no one stepping in between its Giver and its recipient-neither angel ordaining it nor man conveying it.
5. The promise, as resting solely on God, was unconditioned, and therefore permanent and unchanging; the law, interposed between two parties, and specially contingent on a human element, was liable to suspension or abolition.
6. This law, so necessitated by sin, so transient, so connected with angelic ordinance and human handling, was an institute later also by far in its inauguration-was 430 years after the promise.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 3:19. With the foregoing con- elusion before them, it was natural for the readers to ask, wherefore then serveth the law? That is, for what purpose was the law given, if the promise of universal blessing through the seed of Abraham had already been
given to the world as made known to the patriarch? The question is answered in the rest of this verse. The law was added (to the promise); not because God had made any change in His mind about the covenant, but because of transgressions. Members of the Patriarchial Dispensation became so unsatisfactory in their conduct, that it was doubtful if there would be a sufficient number of them in line of service to God to receive the Seed when he came. As a supplementary rule of behaviour, the law was given to bolster the nation descended from Abraham in its service to God, pending the final dispensation to come through Christ. But this addition of the law was not to be permanent (as the Judaizers were contending) but was to be in force only until the coming of the Seed to whom (see verse 16) the promise was made. In other words, the law was to be attached to the promise and in force only until Christ came into the world. Ordained by angels. God never appeared in person to mankind, but was always represented by angels when speaking to Moses and others. (See Act 7:53; Heb 2:2.) In the hand of a mediator. The last word is from MESITES which Thayer defines, “a medium of communication, arbitrator,” and he explains it as follows: “One who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” The mediator was Moses, who acted between God and the Israelties. This is all in agreement with the statement at the beginning of the verse, namely, that the law was added because of transgressions.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 3:19. What then is the law? Since the law has properly nothing to do with the Christian salvation, the question arises: To what end was it then given at all, what is its use and import? The difficulty leads the Apostle to a profound exposition or the relation of the Mosaic to the Christian religion.
It was superadded because of the transgressions.It was not the original scheme, but a subsequent addition to the promise for an interimistic educational purpose to prepare the way for the fulfilment of the promise in Christ by the development of the disease of sin which is necessary to its cure. Comp. Rom 5:20, the law came in beside, etc. Because of, or for the sake of, on account of. This is differently interpreted: (1.) In order to restrain or check transgressions; the law being a bridle to sin (a Riegel and Zugel) and preventing it from gross outbreaks (1Ti 1:9-10). The Jews were, indeed, more moral in their outward deportment than the heathen. But this did not generally predispose them more favorably for the gospel. And then Paul speaks here not of the general restrictive and detective significance of the law which it has to this day, but simply of its propdeutic office as a preparation for Christ (comp. Gal 3:24 ff.). (2.) In order to punish the transgressor, and thus to quicken the moral sense and the desire for redemption. (3.) In order to multiply the transgressions (for the benefit of, comp. the Gr. here used); the law acting as a stimulant on the sinful desire, and calling it out into open exercise (Rom 5:20; Rom 7:5; Rom 7:7-8; Rom 7:10; 1Co 15:56). This bad effect arises not from the law itself, which is good and holy (Rom 7:12; Rom 7:14; Rom 7:22), and which was one of the great blessings of Israel (Rom 9:4), but from the sinful nature of man whose bad passions are pricked and roused by the law, so that the very prohibition tempts him to transgression (Rom 7:13 ff.; Rom 8:3). (4.) In order to bring sin to light, and to make it appear in its true character as a transgression of the divine law, and thus, by the knowledge of the disease, to prepare its cure. Comp. Rom 4:15 : Where no law is, there is no transgression; Rom 3:20 : By the law is the knowledge of sin; Rom 7:7-8 : Without the law sin was dead. The choice lies between the last two interpretations, which are, in fact, closely connected; for it is by the very development of sin in the form of transgression that its true nature is understood, the sense of guilt awakened, and the desire for deliverance increased.
The disease of sin must reach the crisis before the restoration could take place, and so far we may say that God willed the development of sin with the view to its complete suppression by the future redemption. Comp. Rom 5:20 : The law came in beside, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, the gift of grace did still more abound.
The seed, i.e., Christ, as in Gal 5:16.
Being ordained (or enacted) by angels (by the ministry of angels). According to Josephus and the Jewish tradition, the angels acted as the ministers and organs of God in the promulgation of the Mosaic law. The angels mediated between God and Moses, and Moses mediated between the angels and the people of Israel. This view is based upon the Septuagint translation of Deu 33:2 (Jehovah …. shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints, to which the Septuagint adds: on his right hand the angels with him), and indorsed in two other passages of the New Testament (Act 7:53; Act 7:58, and Heb 2:2. It may be inferred from the general mode of divine revelation which is mediated through agencies.
Through the hand of a mediator, i.e., Moses, who received (on Mount Sinai) the tables of the law from God through the angels, and brought them down to the people. Hence he is often called Mediator in Rabbinical books. There were thus two intervening links between Jehovah and the people, a human mediator (Moses), and superhuman agents of God (the angels). This double agency may have been mentioned here either for the purpose of lowering the law in comparison with the gospel where God spoke in his Son directly to men and invites them to commune with Him without the mediation of man or angel; or for the purpose of enhancing the solemnity of the enactment of the law as a preparation for the gospel. The view we take of this design, depends somewhat on the interpretation of Gal 3:20.
Most of the ancient fathers falsely refer the passage to Christ, misled by 1Ti 2:5. But He is the mediator of the gospel, not of the law. Comp. Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. Here he would be coordinated with, or rather subordinated to, the angels and represented as a mere agent, which is altogether foreign to the mind of Paul. Some modern interpreters think of the Metatron, the Angel of the Covenant, who according to the latter Jewish theology instructed Moses in the law.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here an objection is moved: Some might be ready to say, “If the law, that is, works done in obedience to the law, do not justify, then the law given by Moses upon Mount Sinai, is in vain, and to no purpose; for why was the law given, enjoining so many duties, promising life to the obedient, and threatening wrath and a curse to the disobedient, if the inheritance come not by the law?” The apostle answers, that one great end for which the law was given, was to discover sin, and a sinner’s undone condition by reason of sin, and to lead him to seek out for a remedy. The law was added because of transgressions: that is, to make transgression appear, to discover the pollutions of men’s hearts and natures, and make them sensible of the condemnation they are under. The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come: that is, Christ and his church.
Where note, that the legal dispensations were not to continue always in the church, but only till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: at whose death the partition wall was broken down, and the Gentiles called into the fellowship of the church, as well as the Jews.
Observe, farther, the glorious and amazing manner, in which the law was given upon Mount Sinai, in thunder and lightning, by the ministry of angels, in such a terrible manner, that there was no access for sinful man to God, but by Moses, a mediator, standing betwixt God and them; who in that action was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and us. As Moses was a typical, national, and representative Mediator, standing between the Lord and that people of the Jews, so Christ was a substantial and universal Mediator between God and mankind.
Where note, that the law was published in mercy and pacification, not in fury and revenge; for had the Lord intended death in the publishing of the law, he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator, but of an executioner. He adds, That a Mediator is not a Mediator of one, that is, of one party, but of disagreeing parties. God and man were once friends. They were one, and needed no Mediator: But God and man, by sin, fell at variance, and now need a Mediator. The very notion of a Mediator doth suppose, that men by sin, are at odds with God, and that God, by grace, is willing to be one with man. However, though a Mediator is not a mediator of one, yet God is one: that is, together be two covenants: he carries on one and the same purpose and intention, both in the law, and in the gospel; namely, a benevolence and good-will towards, and a hearty desire and reconciliation with mankind.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law If the inheritance was not by the law, but by the promise, as a free gift, for what purpose was the law given, or what significancy had it? It was added because of transgressions That is, to restrain the Israelites from transgressions, particularly idolatry, and the vices connected with idolatry, the evil of which the law discovered to them by its prohibitions and curse. Agreeably to this account of the law, idolatry, and all the abominations practised by the Canaanites, and the other heathen nations who surrounded the Israelites, were forbidden in the law under the severest penalties. Maimonides, a learned Jew, acknowledges, in his More-Nevochim, that the ceremonial law was given for the extirpation of idolatry; for, saith he, When God sent Moses to redeem his people out of Egypt, it was the usual custom of the world, and the worship in which all nations were bred up, to build temples in honour of the sun, moon, and stars, and to offer divers kinds of animals to them, and to have priests appointed for that end. Therefore God, knowing it is beyond the strength of human nature instantly to quit that which it hath been long accustomed to, and so is powerfully inclined to, would not command that all that kind of worship should be abolished, and that he should be worshipped only in spirit; but required that he only should be the object of this outward worship; that temples and altars should be built to him alone; sacrifices offered to him only, and priests consecrated to his service. So Cedrenus, of their festivals, separations, purgations, oblations, &c., observing, God enjoined them, that, being employed in doing these things to the true God, they might abstain from idolatry. And thus, saith Dr. Spencer, were they kept under the discipline of the law, and shut up from the idolatrous rites and customs of the heathen world, by the strictness of these legal observances, and the penalties denounced against the violators of them. And it is well-known, says Whitby, that all the ancient fathers were of this opinion, that God gave the Jews only the decalogue, till they had made the golden calf; and that afterward he laid this yoke of ceremonies upon them to restrain them from idolatry, (see Eze 20:7; Eze 20:11; Eze 20:24-25,) called by the apostle the law of carnal commandments, which he says, was abolished for the weakness and unprofitableness of it, Heb 7:16. Hence these ceremonies were called by St. Paul, , the rudiments of the world, Gal 4:3; Col 2:8; namely, because for matter they were the same which the heathen used before to their false gods. But this ancient exposition, though partly true, does not contain the whole truth; for the apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, informs us, that the law entered that sin might abound; that is, might appear to abound, unto death, that sin might appear sin, working death in, us, Rom 5:20; Rom 7:13. And that the law worketh wrath, namely, by giving us the knowledge of that sin which deserves it, Rom 3:20; Rom 4:15. And this answers to what the apostle here saith, that the law was added because of transgressions, namely, to discover them, and the punishment due to them. See on Gal 3:22; Gal 3:24. So also Macknight: The law was added after the promise, to show the Israelites what things were offensive to God, Rom 3:20. Also, that by the manner in which it was given, becoming sensible of their transgressions, and of Gods displeasure with them for their transgressions, and of the punishment to which they were liable, they might be constrained to have recourse to the covenant with Abraham, in which justification was promised through faith, as it is now promised in the gospel. See Col 2:14. Till the seed should come That illustrious seed, the Messiah; to whom the promise was made It was not fit that the law of Moses, which condemned every sinner to death, should continue any longer than till the seed should come to whom it was promised that in him all nations should be blessed, by having their faith counted for righteousness. For Christ having come, and published in his gospel Gods gracious intention of justifying believers of all nations by faith, if the law of Moses, which condemned every sinner to death without mercy, had been allowed to remain, it would have contradicted the gospel, and have made the promise of no effect. It was, therefore, abrogated with great propriety at the death of Christ; especially as the gospel was a dispensation of religion more effectual than the law for destroying idolatry, and restraining transgression. And was ordained Greek, , appointed, promulgated, or spoken, as it is expressed Heb 2:2. This is affirmed likewise by Stephen, Act 7:38; Act 7:53. In the hand of a mediator Namely, Moses, then appointed by God to act the part of a mediator between him and the people of Israel. The law was not given to Israel, as the promise was to Abraham, immediately from God himself, but was conveyed by the ministry of angels to Moses, and delivered into his hand as a mediator between God and them, and as a type of the great Mediator.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 19
Because of transgressions; to restrain transgressions.–The seed should come; that is, until the generation should come in which the kingdom of Christ was to be established, and the promises of the covenant fulfilled.–Was ordained, &c. The latter clause of this verse, together with the verse which follows, is a passage which has in all ages baffled the learning and ingenuity of commentators. Various conjectures have been offered, but they throw but little light upon the meaning.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
SECTION 13. THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO LEAD US TO FAITH IN CHRIST.
CH. 3:19-24.
What then is the Law? For the sake of the transgressions it was added, until the Seed should come to whom the promise had been made; ordained by the agency of angels, in the hand of a mediator. But the mediator does not pertain to one person: and God is one person. The Law then is it against the promises of God? Far from it. For if there had been given a law able to give life, really from law would righteousness be. But the Scripture has shut up together all things under sin, that the promise may by belief of Jesus Christ be given to those who believe. But before that the belief came, we were kept in ward under law, being shut up together for the belief about to be revealed. So that the Law has become our tutor for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:19. After showing what the Law is not, viz. a later-imposed condition practically annulling the earlier promise, Paul will now say what it is. And this is absolutely needful to his argument. For, indisputably, the Law holds an all-important place in the Old Covenant: and until this place be found we shall ever be in danger of misinterpreting its purpose. Paul asks, since the inheritance is not derived from a rule of conduct, what then is the meaning and aim of the Law? To this question, 13 is the answer. Cp. Gal 3:24.
It was added; recalls adds conditions to, in Gal 3:15, and reminds us that the Law was later than the promises, and suggests that it was subordinate to them.
For-the-sake-of: a general term noting any kind of motive, something either existing or thought of; cp. Tit 2:11; Jud 1:16. Grammatically it might mean because of the sins committed before the giving of the Law; or perhaps, in order to restrain sin in the future. But these senses are foreign to the context. Pauls meaning is expounded, and his teaching here completed, in Gal 3:22; and in Rom 5:20, which teaches that the Law was given in order that it might be broken, that thus the previous moral fall of Adam might multiply into many breaches of a written law. And this meaning is confirmed by the word transgressions, which denotes (Rom 4:15) violations of actual commands. To men born in the power of sin and therefore unable to obey, God gave a law. The only possible result was disobedience; which, since it was inevitable and foreseen, must have been taken up by God into His plan, and in this sense designed by Him. Paul speaks therefore of the various subsequent transgressions, which were a definite object of Gods thought, as being His motive for giving the Law. The ultimate purpose of blessing behind this immediate purpose is stated in Gal 3:22 and in Rom 5:21.
Until the Seed, etc.: a second detail about the Law, and another mark of its subordinate position. It was an addition; and was only for a time. Cp. Gal 3:25.
The Seed: Christ, as declared in Gal 3:16.
To whom the promise had been made: Greek perfect as in Gal 3:18. His coming gave birth to, and He was thus practically identical with, the many nations of Abrahams spiritual children; in whom were fulfilled the promises to his seed, and whom God had specially in view when giving these promises. And their fulfilment involves the establishment of Christs kingdom. Consequently, the promises given to Abraham and designed to be fulfilled in those who in after-ages should believe the Gospel, were designed also for Christ.
Ordained by the agency of angels: a third detail about the Law, revealing its importance as superhuman. Paul thus, as his wont is, pays it due honour. But even these words of honour place the Law below the Gospel. Same teaching in Act 7:53, words heard probably by Paul before his conversion; and in Heb 2:2, where the Law is contrasted with the Gospel. That it was common among the Jews, we infer from Josephus, Antiq. bk. xv. 5. 3, We have learnt from God by the agency of angels the best of the decrees and the most sacred of the things in the Law; and from Philo, vol. ii. 642, Angels announced the commands of the Father to His children. All this proves how firmly in Pauls day both Jews and Christians held that the Law of Moses was given by angels. Yet of a plurality of angels at the giving of the Law the only mention is Deu 33:2, which we may perhaps render, Jehovah came from Sinai He drew near from multitudes of holiness, as though, surrounded by armies of the holy ones of heaven God proclaimed the Law. This the LXX. render with myriads of Kadesh, from His right hand angels with Him. Cp. Psa 68:17, The chariots of God are multitudes, thousands twice-told: the Lord is among them: a Sinai in holiness. But these two ambiguous passages hardly account for definite teaching so widely accepted. Its source is rather the frequent mention of an angel as the medium through which God spoke to Moses. So Exo 3:2; Exo 23:20; Exo 33:2; Num 20:16 : cp. Act 7:30, there appeared to him an angel in a flame of fire Act 7:35; Act 7:38; Act 7:53. This derivation is not disproved by the plural number, angels: for this merely leaves undetermined whether the angel of the Lord was always the same heavenly person, and asserts in general terms that the Law of Moses was given by angelic agency. And this general statement is sufficient to prove the infinite importance of the Law.
That the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was the pre-existent Son of God, was held by the earliest fathers. So Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, 56ff) argues at length; and Tertullian, Against Marcion bk. ii. 27, iii. 9. But of this opinion we can find no trace in the New Testament: and, had it been true, it could hardly have been passed over in silence. Indeed, had the Angel in the burning bush and the pillar of cloud been immediately the Son of God, then by Him was the Law spoken at Sinai: and, if so, Pauls words here would fall so far below the truth that we cannot conceive him using them. And the argument of Heb 2:1 ff would be invalid. Accordingly, Augustine (On the Trinity bk. iii. 11. 22f, 27) argues forcefully that through a created angel God appeared and spoke to Moses. So Jerome on Gal 3:19, and other later writers. And this seems the best explanation. In Dan 12:1; Dan 10:13 we find Michael, one of the chief angel-princes or archangels, who cannot well be other than a created angel, standing in special relation to Israel. This suggests that possibly he led Israel in the wilderness.
That God spoke to Israel His Law through a created angel, foreshadowed the day when through the face and lips of the Eternal Son, incarnate, God showed Himself and spoke to, and dwelt among, men. And this is the true relation between the Angel of the Lord and the Son of God. The one was forerunner of the other. Moreover, whatever God does visibly He does through the Son. Mediately, therefore, through the Son, God spoke the Law to Israel.
A fourth detail about the Law.
A mediator: Moses, who received from God through the agency of the angel the various commands of the Law.
In the hand of: common Hebrew phrase for agency; so Num 4:37; Num 4:45, cp. Act 7:35. But it reminds us that in the very hand of Moses (cp. Exo 32:15) were brought down from Sinai the tables of stone which were the noblest part, and a visible and permanent embodiment, of the Law. Cp. Lev 26:46 : the Laws which Jehovah gave between Himself and the sons of Israel in Mount Sinai in the hand of Moses.
Mediator: once in the LXX., Job 9:33. By Philo, Moses is twice called a mediator: vol. ii. 642 referring to Exo 20:19, and vol. ii. 160 referring to Exo 32:7. It reminds us that, not only did God select Moses to be His means of communicating with Israel, but that (Exo 20:19) he was requested by Israel to be such, and that through him the people promised (Exo 19:8; Exo 24:3) to obey the commands of God. Thus in every sense Moses was a mediator through whom was negotiated the Covenant of God with Israel.
Led astray by 1Ti 2:5 and Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. Origen and most of the Fathers understood the mediator to be Christ. But He was mediator of a Better Covenant. This mistake warns us not to accept as decisive the united judgment of even the greatest of the Fathers. We have means and methods of research unknown to them.
Gal 3:20-21 a. An objection provoked by the word mediator, and noted here in order to be overturned by, and thus to prompt, a further exposition of the purpose of the Law.
The mediator: any mediator, but looked upon as embodying and representing a definite conception. Hence the article.
Does not belong to one: the very conception involving two contracting parties, each of whom is bound by the contract. In the hand of a mediator. Yes. And this implies that by the Old Covenant more than one person was bound; i.e. someone else besides God who is only one person. Thus the obligation accepted by Israel at Sinai, which seemed to be overlooked in the argument of Gal 3:17, is silently brought before us, that the doubt thus suggested may be dispelled. The obscurity of Gal 3:20 no loss. For it is not a link in the argument; but merely suggests the important objection stated in Gal 3:21 a, which is overturned in Gal 3:21 b, Gal 3:22, viz., the Law then, is it against the promises of God? The reply to this objection completes the answer to what then is the Law? in Gal 3:19.
Since the Law was an engagement binding not only God but another party, viz. Israel, it might be thought that this engagement would limit, and thus practically set aside, the earlier promises to Abraham. If so, it would be against the promises of God. This question Paul answers by an indignant negative; and supports his denial by completing in 22 his exposition of the purpose of the Law.
Of the New Covenant Christ is mediator, inasmuch as through Him God draws us to Himself. But Christ was not, as Moses was, requested by men to be a medium of communication between them and God. Consequently, he was not a mediator in the same sense as Moses, But to any contrast between them there is no reference here.
An account of the many expositions of Gal 3:20 is given in the commentary of Meyer. See additional note on p. xxiii.
Gal 3:21-22. Proof that the Law is not against the promises. According to Pauls wont, the weight of the proof rests on the second clause, viz.
Gal 3:22, that the promise may be given, etc.; for which Gal 3:21 b prepares the way.
Give-life: same word in Rom 4:17; Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:22; 1Co 15:36; 1Co 15:45; 2Co 3:6; Joh 5:21; Joh 6:63. It denotes here eternal life. This is the ultimate design of the Law, Rom 7:10 : and in Gal 3:22 we shall see the design accomplished. But that the Law is not of itself able to give life, Paul proves by saying that this would involve righteousness actually derived from law, which in Gal 3:10-13 he has shown to be impossible. He thus introduces suitably the real purpose of the Law. It is not able to give life because (Rom 8:3) it is weak through the flesh.
Righteousness: as in Gal 2:21. It is the opposite of under a curse In Gal 3:10.
The Scripture: or rather the portion of Scripture; see under Gal 3:8. It is the literary embodiment of the Law. So suitable here is Deu 27:26, quoted in Gal 3:10, that we cannot but think that to this passage specially Paul refers. The Scripture is personified as in Gal 3:8, to enable us to realise its tremendous power.
Shut-up-together: same word, and a close parallel, in Rom 11:32.
All things: probably all men, cp. Rom 11:32; for they only can sin. Cp. 1Co 1:27 f. The neuter looks upon men in the aggregate as an abstract idea.
Under sin: Rom 3:9 : under its curse and penalty and power, and these looked upon as a burden from above pressing all men down. As Paul read Deu 27:26, the very words of Scripture seemed to bar irresistibly every way of escape from the deadly bondage of sin. For its words made him powerless to obtain, by anything he could do, the favour of God. See under Gal 3:8.
That the promise, etc.: ultimate purpose of the Law in shutting up all things under sin. It expounds, in answer to the question in Gal 3:21, the relation of the Law to the promises, looking at these as one whole, as the promise.
May-be-given: i.e. may be fulfilled, which alone remains to be done. So Heb 10:36; Heb 11:39. This promise includes virtually (cp. Gal 3:14) the Holy Spirit and all the blessings of the New Covenant.
By belief of the words of Jesus Christ: as in Gal 3:16. It is thrown forward for emphasis. To them that believe: emphatic repetition cp. Rom 3:22. Believers are the recipients, and their faith the immediate source, of the blessings. It is conceivable that even believers might receive them from some other source, e.g. observance of ritual.
The question in Gal 3:19 is now answered. God gave a law which was powerless to save inasmuch as men were unable to obey it, a law which pronounced a curse upon all who did not obey it, in order to force men to seek and to obtain, by simple belief. the blessings promised by God to Abraham. Consequently, the Law is not against, but subservient to, the promises of God. A practical outworking of this divine purpose in the spiritual life of Paul is recorded in Gal 2:16.
Gal 3:23. Restatement of Gal 3:22, in another form preparing a way for 14. Faith (literally the faith) came, when belief of the good tidings of salvation proclaimed by Christ entered into the hearts of men.
For then faith, i.e. assurance that God will fulfil His word, assumed in their thought a new and definite form as the abiding channel of spiritual life. Hence practically faith came when the Gospel came. But the argument suggests the former expression as the more suitable note of time.
Kept-in-ward: 2Co 11:32; Php 4:7; 1Pe 1:5 : a military term denoting both the closing of all way of escape and protection against enemies.
Under law: the abstract principle of treating men according to their actions, (hence no article,) looked upon as an irresistible power under whose authority Paul and his readers were once held in guard. Doubtless he thought chiefly of the Mosaic Law, in which this principle assumed historic form. But these words are true also of the law (Rom 2:15) written on the heart; and therefore include all readers, Jews or Gentiles.
Being-shut-up: Greek present passive; as though each moment at the bidding of the Law every way of escape was being closed. It defines kept-in-ward; and links Gal 3:23 to Gal 3:22. For, to be shut up under law, is, since we cannot obey it, to be shut up under sin. Contrast Rom 6:14.
For the faith, etc.: purpose for which every way of escape was each moment closed: and therefore parallel with Gal 3:22 b.
Revealed: Gal 1:16 : specially appropriate because faith is matter of immediate consciousness; which is implied in this word. See under Rom 1:17. The Gospel unveiled, not merely the truths therein set forth, but a new conception of confidence in the promises of God. And in order that we may have this conception of faith we were formerly held in prison under the irresistible rule of law.
Gal 3:24. Summing up of 13, and especially of Gal 3:22-23.
The Law: of Moses. But, in less degree, this is true of the law written on the heart.
Tutor, or guardian: 1Co 4:15 : one who takes charge of children under seven years old, usually a slave. Cp. Plato, Lysis p. 208c: Who rules thee? This tutor. Indeed, a slave! Strange that one who is free be ruled by a slave! But, what doing, does the tutor rule thee? Leading me to the teachers house.
For Christ: purpose for which the Law has become our tutor, viz. that, instead of wandering elsewhere, we should come to Christ and belong to Him. That Paul thinks of Christ, not as a teacher, as the word tutor naturally suggests, but as a means of justification, the following words show.
That we might, etc.: parallel with for Christ, and supplementing it. We were placed in helpless bondage under the iron rule of law, that for us there might be no way of escape except by coming to Christ to be justified through faith. Cp. Gal 2:16.
SECTION 13 is an important addition to the teaching about the Law in Rom 5:20. See note under Rom 8:11. The Law was given in order to reveal to us our utter moral helplessness and ruin, to destroy all hope of self-wrought salvation, and thus to drive us to Christ for help and to prepare us to accept in sheer desperation justification as Gods gift on the simple condition of faith. Notice carefully that the immediate moral purpose of the Law to hold men back from sin, which must have been in Gods thought when giving it, is by Paul completely subordinated to this ultimate evangelical purpose. To him the Law is only a preparation for the Gospel. This reveals his deep conviction of the powerlessness of mere morality to secure mans highest interests, and of the infinitely greater importance of the new life proclaimed in the Gospel. With Paul, Christian morality is derived (Gal 5:14) from the law of love accomplished in us by (Gal 5:16) the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
3:19 {22} Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of {o} transgressions, {p} till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; {23} [and it was] {q} ordained by {r} angels in the hand of a mediator.
(22) An objection which rises from the former answer: if the inheritance is not by the Law (in the least way) then why was the Law given after the promise was made? In order, the apostle says, to reprove men of sin, and so to teach them to look to Christ, in whom at length that promise of saving all people together should be fulfilled; the Law was not given in order to justify men.
(o) That men might understand by discovering their sins that they are only saved by the grace of God, which he revealed to Abraham, and that in Christ.
(p) Until the partition wall was broken down, and that full seed sprang up, made of two peoples, both of Jews and Gentiles. For by this word “seed” we may not understand Christ alone by himself, but coupled and joined together with his body.
(23) A confirmation of the former answer taken from the manner and form of giving the Law: for it was given by angels, striking a great terror into all, and by Moses a mediator coming between. Now they that are one need no mediator, but they that are in any way separated, and that are at variance one with another, do. Therefore the Law itself and the mediator were witnesses of the wrath of God, and not that God would by this means reconcile men to himself and abolish the promise, or add the Law to the promise.
(q) Commanded and given, or proclaimed.
(r) By the service and ministry.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The purpose of the Law 3:19-22
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
In view of the foregoing argument, did the Law have any value? Yes, God had several purposes in it. Purpose, not cause, is in view, as is clear in the Greek text.
There have been four primary interpretations of what "because of transgressions" means. First, some take it to mean, "to restrain transgressions." [Note: E.g., David J. Lull, "’The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):482.] This seems legitimate since all law has a restraining effect. Second, some understand the phrase to mean, "to reveal transgressions." This seems valid in view of other statements that Paul made (cf. Rom 3:20; Rom 4:15; Rom 5:13). Third, it may mean, "to provoke transgressions." This, too, seems legitimate. A "Do not touch! Wet paint!" sign on a bench tempts people to touch the bench to see if the paint really is wet. Fourth, some have understood that Paul meant, "to awaken a conviction of transgressions." This seems less likely in this context since Paul showed more concern with the objective facts of salvation history than he did with the subjective development of faith in the individual. [Note: Fung, pp. 159-60.]
Angels who stood between God and the Israelites mediated the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Deu 33:2, LXX). Both God and the Jews had responsibilities under the Law. In contrast, God Himself revealed the Abrahamic Covenant, without mediation, in which only God had responsibilities (Gal 3:20; cf. Genesis 15).
"Just as it [the Law] had a point of origin on Mount Sinai, so also it had a point of termination-Mount Calvary." [Note: Ibid., p. 254.]
Paul clarified that the Law was only a temporary measure designed to function until Christ came. [Note: See J. Daniel Hays, "Applying the Old Testament Law Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):21-35; and Hal Harless, "The Cessation of the Mosaic Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:639 (July-September 2003):349-66.]
"The function of the law was to point people to Christ, not to provide for all time the way the people of God should live." [Note: Morris, p. 113.]
"He [Paul] conceives of a sequence which may be summarized as follows: age of promise, age of law, age of Christ, the last being conceived as a fulfillment of the age of promise." [Note: Guthrie, Galatians, p. 104.]
The Christian Reconstruction movement answers Paul’s question, "Why the Law then?" (Gal 3:19) this way. God gave the Mosaic Law to provide a framework for the operation of every nation’s government. [Note: See Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction.]
"Reconstructionists anticipate a day when Christians will govern using the Old Testament as the law book" [Note: Rodney Clapp, "Democracy as Heresy," Christianity Today (February 20, 1987), p. 17. This article is an excellent popular evaluation of the movement.]
Reconstructionism rests on presuppositional apologetics, theonomy (lit. the rule of God), and postmillennialism. Other names for it are the theonomy movement and the Chalcedon school. It has gained many followers, many among charismatic evangelicals. Its popular appeal is that it claims God wants America and every other nation to function as God intended Israel to function, namely, as a theocracy. It fails to make a distinction between God’s unique purpose for Israel and His purpose for other nations throughout history. [Note: Other helpful critiques include the following: Thomas D. Ice, "An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism," Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1989):281-30; Robert Lightner, "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; and 571 (July-September 1986):228-45; Meredith Kline, "Comments on an Old-New Error," Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89; and Douglas Chismar and David Raush, "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 14
THE DESIGN OF THE LAW.
Gal 3:19-24
“WHAT then is the law?” So the Jew might well exclaim. Paul has been doing nothing but disparage it.-“You say that the Law of Moses brings no righteousness or blessing, but only a curse; that the covenant made with Abraham ignores it, and does not admit of being in any way qualified by its provisions. What then do you make of it? Is it not Gods voice that we hear in its commands? Have the sons of Abraham ever since Moses day been wandering from the true path of faith? “Such inferences might be drawn, not unnaturally, from the Apostles denunciation of Legalism. They were actually drawn by Marcion in the second century, in his extreme hostility to Judaism and the Old Testament.
This question must indeed have early forced itself upon Pauls mind. How could the doctrine of Salvation by Faith and the supremacy of the Abrahamic Covenant be reconciled with the Divine commission of Moses? How, on the other hand, could the displacement of the Law by the Gospel be justified, if the former too was authorised and inspired by God? Can the same God have given to men these two contrasted revelations of Himself? The answer, contained in the passage before us, is that the two revelations had different ends in view. They are complementary, not competing institutes. Of the two, the Covenant of Promise has the prior right; it points immediately to Christ. The Legal economy is ancillary thereto; it never professed to accomplish the work of grace, as the Judaists would have it do. Its office was external, but nevertheless accessory to that of the Promise. It guarded and schooled the infant heirs of Abrahams Testament, until the time of its falling due, when they should be prepared in the manhood of faith to enter on their inheritance. “The law hath been our tutor for Christ, with the intent we should be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24).
This aspect of the Law, under which, instead of being an obstacle to the life of faith, it is seen to subserve it, has been suggested already. “For I,” the Apostle said, “through law died to law”. {Gal 2:19} The Law first impelled him to Christ. It constrained him to look beyond itself. Its discipline was a preparation for faith. Paul reverses the relation in which Faith and Law were set by the Judaists. They brought in the Law to perfect the unfinished work of faith (Gal 3:3): he made it preliminary and pro paedeutic. What they gave out for more advanced doctrine, he treats as the “weak rudiments,” belonging to the infancy of the sons of God. {Gal 4:1-11} Up to this point, however, the Mosaic law has been considered chiefly in a negative way, as a foil to the Covenant of grace. The Apostle has now to treat of its nature more positively and explicitly, first indeed in contrast with the promise (Gal 3:19-20); and secondly, in its co-operation with the promise (Gal 3:22-24). Gal 3:21 is the transition from the first to the second of these conceptions.
I. “For the sake of the transgressions (committed against it) the law was added.” The Promise, let us remember, was complete in itself. Its testament of grace was sealed and delivered ages before the Mosaic legislation, which could not therefore retract or modify it. The Law was “superadded,” as something over and above, attached to the former revelation for a subsidiary purpose lying outside the proper scope of the Promise. What then was this purpose?
1. For the sake of transgressions. In other words, the object of the law of Moses was to develop sin. This is not the whole of the Apostles answer; but it is the key to his explanation. This design of the Mosaic revelation determined its form and character. Here is the standpoint from which we are to estimate its working, and its relation to the kingdom of grace. The saying of Rom 5:20 is Pauls commentary upon this sentence: “The law came in by the way, in order that the trespass (of Adam) might multiply.” The same necessity is expressed in the paradox of 1Co 15:56 : “The strength of sin is the law.”
This enigma, as a psychological question, is resolved by the Apostle in Rom 7:13-24. The law acts as a spur and provocative, rousing the power of sin to conscious activity. However good in itself, coming into contact with mans evil flesh, its promulgation is followed inevitably by transgression. Its commands are so many occasions for sin to come into action, to exhibit and confirm its power. So that the Law practically assumes the same relation to sin as that in which the Promise stands to righteousness and life. In its union with the law our sinful nature perpetually “brings forth fruit unto death.” And this mournful result God certainly contemplated when He gave the Law of Moses.
But are we compelled to out so harsh a sense on the Apostles words? May we not say that the Law was imposed in order to restrain sin, to keep it within bounds? Some excellent interpreters read the verse in this way. It is quite true that, in respect of public morals and the outward manifestations of evil, the Jewish law acted beneficially, as a bridle upon the sinful passions. But this is beside the mark. The Apostle is thinking only of inward righteousness, that which avails before God. The wording of the clause altogether excludes the milder interpretation. For the sake of (, Latin gratia) signifies promotion, not prevention. And the word transgression, by its Pauline and Jewish usage, compels us to this view. Transgression presupposes law. It is the specific form which sin takes under law-the reaction of sin against law. What was before a latent tendency, a bias of disposition, now starts to light as a flagrant, guilty fact. By bringing about repeated transgressions the Law reveals the true nature of sin, so that it “becomes exceeding sinful.” It does not make matters worse; but it shows how bad they really are. It aggravates the disease, in order to bring it to a crisis. And this is a necessary step towards the cure.
2. The Law of Moses was therefore a provisional dispensation, -“added until the Seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.” Its object was to make itself superfluous. It “is not, made for a righteous man; but for the lawless and unruly”. {1Ti 1:9} Like the discipline and drill of a strictly governed boyhood, it was calculated to produce a certain effect on the moral nature, after the attainment of which it was no longer needed and its continuance would be injurious. The essential part of this effect lay, however, not so much in the outward regularity it imposed, as in the inner repugnancy excited by it, the consciousness of sin unsubdued and defiant. By its operation on the conscience the Law taught man his need of redemption. It thus prepared the platform for the work of Grace. The Promise had been given. The coming of the Covenant-heir was assured. But its fulfilment was far off. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise,”-and yet it was two thousand years before “Abrahams seed” came to birth. The degeneracy of the patriarchs children in the third and fourth generation showed how little the earlier heirs of the Promise were capable of receiving it. A thousand years later, when the Covenant was renewed with David, the ancient predictions seemed at last nearing their fulfilment. But no; the times were still unripe; the human conscience but half-disciplined. The bright dawn of the Davidic monarchy was overclouded. The legal yoke is made more burdensome; sore chastisements fall on the chosen people, marked out for suffering as well as honour. Prophecy has many lessons yet to inculcate. The worlds education for Christ has another millennium to run.
Nor when He came, did “the Son of man find faith in the earth”! The people of the Law had no sooner seen than they hated “Him to whom the law and the prophets gave witness.” Yet, strangely enough, the very manner of their rejection showed how complete was the preparation for His coming. Two features, rarely united, marked the ethical condition of the Jewish people at this time-an intense moral consciousness, and a deep moral perversion; reverence for the Divine law, combined with an alienation from its spirit. The chapter of Pauls autobiography to which we have so often referred {Rom 7:7-24} is typical of the better mind of Judaism. It is the ne plus ultra of self-condemnation. The consciousness of sin in mankind has ripened.
3. And further, the Law of Moses revealed Gods will in a veiled and accommodated fashion, while the Promise and the Gospel are its direct emanations. This is the inference which we draw from Gal 3:19-20.
We are well aware of the extreme difficulty of this passage. Gal 3:20 has received, it is computed, some four hundred and thirty distinct interpretations. Of all the “hard things our beloved brother Paul” has written, this is the very hardest. The words which make up the sentence are simple and familiar; and yet in their combination most enigmatic. And it stands in the midst of a paragraph among the most interesting and important that the Apostle ever wrote.
Let us look first at the latter clause of Gal 3:19 : “ordained through angels, in the hand (i.e., by means) of a mediator.” These circumstances, as the orthodox Jew supposed, enhanced the glory of the Law. The pomp and formality under which Mosaism was ushered in, the presence of the angelic host to whose agency the terrific manifestations attending the Law-giving were referred, impressed the popular mind with a sense of the incomparable sacredness of the Sinaitic revelation. It was this assumption which gave its force to the climax of Stephens speech, of which we hear an echo in these words of Paul: “who received the law at the disposition of angels-and have not kept it!” The simplicity and informality of the Divine communion with Abraham, and again of Christs appearance in the world and His intercourse with men, afford a striking contrast to all this.
More is hinted than is expressly said in Scripture of the part taken by the angels in the Law-giving. Deu 33:2 and Psa 68:17 give the most definite indications of the ancient faith of Israel on this point. But “the Angel of the Lord” is a familiar figure of Old Testament revelation. In Hebrew thought impressive physical phenomena were commonly associated with the presence of spiritual agents. The language of Heb 1:7; Heb 2:2 endorses this belief, which in no way conflicts with natural science, and is in keeping with the Christian faith.
But while such intermediacy, from the Jewish standpoint, increased the splendour and authority of the Law, believers in Christ had learned to look at the matter otherwise. A revelation “administered through angels, ” spoke to them of a God distant and obscured, of a people unfit for access to His presence. This is plainly intimated in the added clause, “by means of a mediator, “- a title commonly given to Moses, and recalling the entreaty Exo 20:19; Deu 5:22-28 : “The people said, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” These are the words of sinful men, receiving a law given, as the Apostle has just declared, on purpose to convict them of their sins. The form of the Mosaic revelation tended therefore in reality not to exalt the Law, but to exhibit its difference from the Promise and the distance at which it placed men from God.
The same thought is expressed, as Bishop Lightfoot aptly shows, by the figure of “the veil on Moses face,” which Paul employs with so much felicity in 2Co 3:13-18. In the external glory of the Sinaitic law-giving, as on the illuminated face of the Law-giver, there was a fading brightness, a visible lustre concealing its imperfect and transitory character. The theophanies of the Old Covenant were a magnificent veil, hiding while they revealed. Under the Law, angels, Moses came between God and man. It was God who in His own grace conveyed the promise to justified Abraham (Gal 3:18).
The Law employed a mediator; the Promise did not (Gal 3:19). With this contrast in our minds we approach Gal 3:20. On the other side of it (Gal 3:21), we find Law and Promise again in sharp antithesis. The same antithesis runs through the intervening sentence. The two clauses of Gal 3:20 belong to the Law and Promise respectively. “Now a mediator is not of one”: that is an axiom which holds good of the Law. “But God is one”: this glorious truth, the first article of Israels creed, applies to the Promise. Where “a mediator” is necessary, unity is wanting, -not simply in a numerical, but in a moral sense, as matter of feeling and of aim. There are separate interests, discordant views to be consulted. This was true of Mosaism. Although in substance “holy and just and good,” it was by no means purely Divine. It was not the absolute religion. Not only was it defective; it contained, in the judgment of Christ, positive elements of wrong, precepts given “for the hardness of mens hearts.” It largely consisted of “carnal ordinances, imposed till the time of rectification”. {Heb 9:10} The theocratic legislation of the Pentateuch is lacking in the unity and consistency of a perfect revelation. Its disclosures of God were refracted in a manifest degree by the atmosphere through which they passed.
“But God is one.” Here again the unity is moral and essential-of character and action, rather than of number. In the Promise God spoke immediately and for Himself. There was no screen to intercept the view of faith, no go-between like Moses, with God on the mountaintop shrouded in thunder-clouds and the people terrified or wantoning far below. Of all differences between the Abrahamic and Judaic types of piety this was the chief. The man of Abrahams faith sees God in His unity. The Legalist gets his religion at second-hand, mixed with un-divine elements. He believes that there is one God; but his hold upon the truth is formal. There is no unity, no simplicity of faith in his conception of God. He projects on to the Divine image confusing shadows of human imperfection.
God is one: this great article of faith was the foundation of Israels life. It forms the first sentence of the Shema, the “Hear, O Israel,” {Deu 6:4-9} which every pious Jew repeats twice a day, and which in literal obedience to the Lawgivers words he fixes above his house-door, and binds upon his arm and brow at the time of prayer. Three times besides has the Apostle quoted this sentence. The first of these passages, Rom 3:29-30, {Comp. 1Co 8:6; 1Ti 2:5; also Mar 12:29-30; Jam 2:19} may help us to understand its application here. In that place he employs it as a weapon against Jewish exclusiveness. If there is but “one God,” he argues, “there can be only one way of justification, for Jew and Gentile alike.” The inference drawn here is even more bold and singular. There is “one God,” who appeared in His proper character in the Covenant with Abraham. If the Law of Moses gives us a conception of His nature in any wise different from this, it is because other and lower elements found a place in it. Through the whole course of revelation there is one God-manifest to Abraham, veiled in Mosaism, revealed again in His perfect image in “the face of Jesus Christ.”
II. So far the Apostle has pursued the contrast between the systems of Law and Grace. When finally he has referred the latter rather than the former to the “one God,” we naturally ask, “Is the Law then against the promises of God?” (Gal 3:21). Was the Legal dispensation a mere reaction, a retrogression from the Promise? This would be to push Pauls argument to an antinomian extreme: He hastens to protest.-“The law against the promises? Away with the thought.” Not on the Apostles premises, but on those of his opponents, did this consequence ensue. It is they who set the two at variance, by trying to make law do the work of grace. “For if a law had been given that could bring men to life, righteousness would verily in that case have been of law” (Gal 3:21). That righteousness, and therefore life, is not of law, the Apostle has abundantly shown. {Gal 2:16; Gal 3:10-13} Had the Law provided some efficient means of its own for winning righteousness, there would then indeed have been a conflict between the two principles. As matters stand there is none. Law and Promise move on different planes. Their functions are distinct. Yet there is a connection between them. The design of the Law is to mediate between the Promise and its fulfilment. “The trespass” must be “multiplied,” the knowledge of sin deepened, before Grace can do its office. The fever of sin has to come to its crisis, before the remedy can take effect. Law is therefore not the enemy, but the minister of Grace. It was charged with a purpose lying beyond itself. “Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness”. {Rom 10:4}
1. For, in the first place, the law cuts men off from all other hope of salvation.
On the Judaistic hypothesis, “righteousness would have been of law.” But quite on the contrary, “the Scripture shuts up everything under sin, that the promise might be given in the way of faith in Jesus Christ, to them that believe” (Gal 3:22). Condemnation inevitable, universal, was pronounced by the Divine word under the Law, not in order that men might remain crushed beneath its weight, but that, abandoning vain hopes of self-justification, they might find in Christ their true deliverer.
The Apostle is referring here to the general support of “the Scripture.” His assertion embraces the whole teaching of the Old Testament concerning human sinfulness, embodied, for example, in the chain of citations drawn Rom 3:10-18. Wherever the man looking for legal justification turned, the Scripture met him with some new command which drove him back upon the sense of his moral helplessness. It fenced him in with prohibitions; it showered on him threatenings and reproaches; it besieged him in ever narrowing circles. And if he felt less the pressure of its outward burdens, all the more was he tormented by inward disharmony and self-accusation.
Now the judgment of Scripture is not uttered against this class of men or that, against this type of sin or that. Its impeachment sweeps the entire area of human life, sounding the depths of the heart, searching every avenue of thought and desire. It makes of the world one vast prison-house, with the Law for jailor, and mankind held fast in chains of sin, waiting for death. In this position the Apostle had found himself; {Rom 7:24-25; Rom 8:1-2} and in his own heart he saw a mirror of the world. “Every mouth was stopped, and all the world brought in guilty before God”. {Rom 3:19} This condition he graphically describes in terms of his former experience, in Gal 3:23 : “Before faith came, under law we were kept in ward, being shut up unto the faith that was to be revealed.” The Law was all the while standing guard over its subjects, watching and checking every attempt to escape, but intending to hand them over in due time to the charge of Faith. The Law posts its ordinances, like so many sentinels, round the prisoners cell. The cordon is complete. He tries again and again to break out; the iron circle will not yield. But deliverance will yet be his. The day of faith approaches. It dawned long ago in Abrahams Promise. Even now its light shines into his dungeon, and he hears the word of Jesus, “Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace.” Law, the stern jailor, has after all been a good friend, if it has reserved him for this. It prevents the sinner escaping to a futile and illusive freedom.
In this dramatic fashion Paul shows how the Mosaic law by its ethical discipline prepared men for a life which by itself it was incapable of giving. Where Law has done its work well, it produces, as in the Apostles earlier experience, a profound sense of personal demerit, a tenderness of conscience, a contrition of heart which makes one ready thankfully to receive “the righteousness which is of God by faith.” In every age and condition of life a like effect is wrought upon men who honestly strive to live up to an exacting moral standard. They confess their failure. They lose self-conceit. They grow “poor in spirit,” willing to accept “the abundance of the gift of righteousness” in Jesus Christ.
Faith is trebly honoured here. It is the condition of the gift, the characteristic of its recipient (Gal 3:22; Gal 3:24), and the end for which he was put under the charge of Law (Gal 3:23). “To them that believe” is “given,” as it was in foretaste to Abraham (Gal 3:6), a righteousness unearned, and bestowed on Christs account; {Gal 3:13; Rom 5:17-18} which brings with it the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, reserved in its conscious possession for Abrahams children in the faith of Christ. {Gal 3:14; Gal 4:4} These blessings form the commencement of that true life whose root is a spiritual union with Christ, and which reaches on to eternity. {Gal 2:20; Rom 5:21; Rom 6:23} Of such life the Law could impart nothing; but it taught men their need of it, and disposed them to accept it. This was the purpose of its institution. It was the forerunner, not the finisher, of Faith.
2. Paul makes use of a second figure to describe the office of the Law; under which he gives his final answer to the question of Gal 3:19. The metaphor of the jailor is exchanged for that of the tutor.” The law hath been our for Christ.” This Greek word (boy-leader) has no English equivalent; we have not the thing it represents. The “pedagogue” was a sort of nursery governor, -a confidential servant in the Greek household, commonly a slave, who had charge of the boy from his infancy, and was responsible for his oversight. In his food, his clothes, his home-lessons, his play, his walks-at every point the pedagogue was required to wait upon his young charge, and to control his movements. Amongst other offices, his tutor might have to conduct the boy to school; and it has been supposed that Paul is thinking of this duty, as though he meant, “The Law has been our pedagogue, to take us to Christ, our true teacher.” But he adds, “That we might be justified of faith.” The “tutor” of Gal 3:24 is parallel to the “guard” of the last verse; he represents a distinctly disciplinary influence.
This figure implies not like the last the imprisoned condition of the subject-but his childish, undeveloped state. This is an advance of thought. The Law was something more than a system of restraint and condemnation. It contained an element of progress. Under the tutelage of his pedagogue the boy is growing up to manhood. At the end of its term the Law will hand over its charge mature in capacity and equal to the responsibilities of faith. “If then the Law is a , it is not hostile to Grace, but its fellow-worker; but should it continue to hold us fast when Grace has come, then it would be hostile” (Chrysostom).
Although the highest function, that of “giving life,” is denied to the Law, a worthy part is still assigned to it by the Apostle. It was “a tutor to lead men to Christ.” Judaism was an education for Christianity. It prepared the world for the Redeemers coming. It drilled and moralised the religious youth of the human race. It broke up the fallow-ground of nature, and cleared a space in the weed-covered soil to receive the seed of the kingdom. Its moral regimen deepened the conviction of sin, while it multiplied its overt acts. Its ceremonial impressed on sensuous natures the idea of the Divine holiness; and its sacrificial rites gave definiteness and vividness to mens conceptions of the necessity of atonement, failing indeed to remove sin, but awakening the need and sustaining the hope of its removal. {Heb 10:1-18}
The Law of Moses has formed in the Jewish nation a type of humanity like no other in the world. “They dwell alone,” said Balaam, “and shall not be reckoned amongst the nations.” Disciplined for ages under their harsh “pedagogue,” this wonderful people acquired a strength of moral fibre and a spiritual sensibility that prepared them to be the religious leaders of mankind. Israel has given us David and Isaiah, Paul and John. Christ above all was “born under law-of Davids seed according to flesh.” The influence of Jewish minds at this present time on the worlds higher thought, whether for good or evil, is incalculable; and it penetrates everywhere. The Christian Church may with increased emphasis repeat Pauls anticipation, “What will the receiving of them be, but life from the dead!” They have a great service still to do for the Lord and for His Christ. It was well for them and for us that they have “borne the yoke in their youth.”