15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. verses (13, 14) it appears that Paul regarded the vicarious death of Christ as necessary, in order to the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Human salvation depends upon the death of the Redeemer as a propitiatory sacrifice, and has always depended on that death. Paul next proceeds to show 5. THAT THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM CANNOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED OR CHANGED BY THE LAW WHICH WAS GIVEN LONG AFTERWARD. (15-18.) Compare Rom. 4: 13, 14, 16. 15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Observe the cordial address, 'brethren.' The feelings of love and kindness are deep in the apostle's heart, and they now find expression. After the manner of men'-that is to say, 'I am about to use an illustration from man's way of dealing with man.' Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. There seems to be no absolute necessity for the insertion of 'but' in the first clause, and therefore, as it represents no word in the original, it may be better to omit it, thus: 'A covenant which has been ratified, though a man's, yet no one sets aside or adds to it.' The word 'man's' is emphatic, in contrast with the word 'God's,' understood. That is, when a contract between different men is once ratified or confirmed, it cannot be changed by setting it aside altogether, or by adding new stipulations. It is fixed and sacred. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. See Revised Version and Gen. 13: 15; 22: 17, 18. It is the words 'and his seed' which Paul uses in the following exposition. His argument has been freely criticised as Rabbinical, and by Baur as plainly arbitrary and incorrect." But it is our duty to hesitate long before charging the apostle with unsound interpretation or doctrine. Very likely his thought is deeper than we perceive, and worthy of admiration, rather than of contempt. Certainly he was correct in looking upon these promises as having more reference to the seed of Abraham than to Abraham himself. Let 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth 16 thereto. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is his exposition then receive close attention, and just, if not generous, treatment! He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. On this verse Dr. Hackett says: "The apostle does not refer here to any particular passage in the Old Testament which contains these words. .; but avails himself of this compendious mode of speaking as a convenient formula for summing up the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this subject. It will be noticed that the singular and the plural differ in this, that 'seed' (σñéρμа) denotes a unity of genus or class with a plurality of parts (as, for example, the wheat is one, though the kernels are many), and 'seeds' (σnépμara) a plurality of classes, as wheat, barley, rye. Compare 'seed' (y) in 1 Sam. 8: 15. It is, therefore, as if Paul had said: "Search the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi; the promises all run in one strain; they make no mention of a plurality of seeds, such as a natural and spiritual seed, at the same time; they speak of a single seed only, the believing race, those who are like Abraham in his faith (see Rom. 4:12), whether Jews or Gentiles; and as this restriction of the language to the one seed limits and exhausts the promises as to any share in the blessings of Abraham's justification, there are no promises of this nature for other seeds, such as Abraham's natural descendants, merely as such, or Jews by adoption, in virtue of their submission to Jewish rites." It may be observed: (1) That the promises made to Abraham were made also to his spiritual 'seed,' the collective noun denoting one body of posterity, not several bodies. Compare ver. 7, 9, 14, above. (2) That Christ was the glory of Abraham's seed, the One whose trust in God was absolute, and in whom pre-eminently all the nations were to be blessed. (3) That Christ is the unifying power in all true believers. In him they are 'one' person' (eis). See ver. 28. Indeed, it has been said that Paul was fully justified in regarding all the promises as made to Christ, because Christ was the principle of spiritual life in Abraham and in all who, like 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 17 Christ. Now this I say; A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to him, believe. To Christ, dwelling by his | raelites in Egypt was four hundred and thirty Spirit in the faithful of every age, were the promises really made. Compare the notes of Ellicott, Lightfoot, Cook, Beet, on this passage; also Balentine in "Bibliotheca Sacra," 1885, page 568, and on the other side of the question Bauer, Meyer, and others. The argument of the apostle is not without difficulty, but there is no ground for the charge that it is fallacious. Much rather should we suppose that it rests upon a deeper view of the unity of believers with Christ than is commonly entertained. To this fact Paul often refers in language of startling force. 17. Now this I say-in other words, 'This is my meaning, the principal thought which I have to express in connection with my remark concerning a man's covenant.' The conjunction 'now' (de) is resumptive; for the apostle's argument had been interrupted momentarily by the explanation of his seed,' in ver. 16. The covenant that was confirmed before of (by) God in Christ, the law, which was (came) four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul (or, annul) that it should make the promise of none effect —that is, if human covenants once ratified are sacred and cannot be abrogated or essentially modified afterward, much less can the law, which was given long after the covenant had been established by God himself with Abraham, annul the promise contained in that covenant. Whatever else may have been the design of the law, it cannot have been intended to set aside, or to modify by new terms, the promise of justification through faith. “The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." (Rom. 11: 29.) But though the bearing of this verse on Paul's argument is very clear, objection has been made to it as containing an erroneous chronological statement. For the words, I which came four hundred and thirty years after,' are said to imply that the whole period, from the first giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the law, was only four hundred and thirty years; while Exod. 12: 40, 41, where, and where only the same period is mentioned, shows that the sojourn of the Is years. Compare the language of Stephen in Acts 7: 6, and Hackett's note on the same. The sojourn in Egypt is there spoken of in round numbers as four hundred years. But, according to the best computation, two hundred and fifteen years elapsed between the time when the promise was first given and the time when Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt at the invitation of Joseph; so that the law came more than six hundred years after the promise. What shall be said of this discrepancy? This, in the first place, that Paul's reasoning is not affected in the slightest degree by the length of the period. The law was given long after the promise-whether four hundred and thirty years or six hundred and forty-five years, more or less, is of no consequence. It was enough for him to refer to the period in such terms as would bring it distinctly before the minds of his readers. He is not fixing points of chronology, but recalling a well-known period. Accordingly 1. Paul may have followed the Septuagint, which contains an addition to the Hebrew text of Exod. 12: 40, making it read, 'in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan,' and may have done this because the Greek version was sufficiently accurate for his purpose and was generally used by the Galatians. His object was not to teach them Biblical chronology, but to remind them of the fact that the law was given long after the promise, and could not be supposed to destroy or change the latter. 2. He may have followed the Hebrew text, making the close, instead of the beginning of the patriarchal age, the starting point in his reckoning; for the promise was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, and was, therefore, contemporaneous with the whole patriarchal period. With this would agree the plural, 'promises,' in ver. 16, if this plural relates to a repetition of essentially the same promise, which is certainly probable. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added 18 make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritauce is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God 19 hath granted it to Abraham by promise. What then is the law? it was added because of transgressions, and fifteen years, appeal is made to Exod. | of enabling us to establish a claim to the Di6:20 and Num. 26: 59; for, according to vine favor, what end, the objector may ask, these passages, Amram, grandson of Levi, was it designed to answer? (8:19.) In reply marries his father's sister, Jochebed." And, to this question, the apostle explains the great as it appears probable by a comparison of object of the law to be to prepare men for the dates that Levi was born when Jacob was reception of the gospel by awakening them to about eighty-seven, Levi would have been a consciousness of their sins and convincing forty-three when he came into Egypt; there them of their need of the deliverance from he lives ninety-four years. (Exod. 6; 16.) As-guilt and condemnation, which the redempsuming, then, that Jochebed was born in the tion of Christ affords. (3:20-22.) We may last year of Levi's life,-which is by no means suppose that while Paul would describe this probable, she must have been at least two as the office of law in general, and one, therehundred and fifty-six years old when Moses fore, which it is adapted still to perform as a was born, if the sojourn in Egypt be four means of bringing men to Christ, he means to hundred and thirty years." (Ellicott.) If affirm it here more especially of the Mosaic there are no missing links in the genealogy Economy, that great embodiment of the legal of Exod. 6: 20 and of Num. 26: 59, the so- principle which was established to prepare the journ of the Israelites in Egypt could not way for another and better system; and then, have lasted more than about two hundred and as to its outward forms, its rites and symbols, fifteen years But the most obvious interpre- was destined to come to an end. (3:23-25.) tation of a genealogical table is not always Under this more perfect system which is realtrustworthy; for unimportant names are fre- ized in Christ, those who were only the natural quently omitted from such a table. On the descendants of Abraham become by faith his whole, then, either the first or the second spiritual seed; those who were servants, groanexplanation is preferable to the third; but in ing under the bondage of sin and the law, no case can the truthfulness of Paul's lan- become free. (3: 26-29.) Those who were chilguage be impeached. dren in a state of minority and pupilage, are advanced to the dignity of sons and heirs of God, and receive the seal of their adoption as such in the presence of the Spirit of God in their hearts. (4:1-7.)" (Hackett.) 18. For if the inheritance be (is) of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave (hath given) it to Abraham by promise. For makes this confirmatory of the preceding words, 'so as to make the promise of none effect.' It would be better, perhaps, in this instance, to insert no article before the word 'law': 'If the inheritance is of law, it is no more of promise,' as it was before the law was given. Yet the reference may be to the law of Moses. 'Hath given.' The original word means hath freely given. Once more, therefore, the apostle insists that true heirship is a free gift. It cannot be earned by obedience to the law. Justification is by grace through faith. The apostle now proceeds to point out 6. THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE LAW WAS GIVEN; NAMELY, TO AWAKEN IN MEN A CONSCIOUSNESS OF SIN, AND THUS LEAD THEM TO FAITH IN CHRIST. (3: 19-24.) "But if the law have no value as a means 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? that is to say, What is the object of the law? The same meaning would be gained by translating the question, Why then the law?' If men cannot be justified by means of it, what good end does it serve, or why was it given? The question which the apostle asks is one that could hardly fail to arise in the minds of the Galatians. Having been taught to accept the Old Testament as a divine revelation, and the law given by Moses as coming really from God, it was impossible for them to believe that it had no holy purpose to serve. And if their teacher had now proved that no man could be saved by obedience to it, they would naturally insist upon his pointing out the reason for its existence, the good end which it was meant to accomplish. The apostle an 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. till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by 20 the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a known to the people. Though nothing is said in the book of Exodus concerning the ministration of angels at the giving of the law, their presence is referred to in Deut. 33: 2 and their service in Acts 7: 53 and Heb. 2: 2. But it is useless to conjecture what precisely their service was. This only is implied by the argument here, as well as by the course of thought in Heb. 2: 2, that the ministry of angels must be supposed to have diminished, rather than to have increased the intrinsic grandeur of the occasion and the importance of the law. A direct communication from God himself would have served to enhance the dignity and sacredness of that which was communicated. This will become more evident from our study of the next verse. swers: It was added because of (the) | Moses, who received the law and made it transgressions. The word translated 'because of' signifies, primarily, for the sake of, and it is best to retain that meaning here. Thayer's "Lexicon" explains the phrase "for the sake of transgressions" as meaning, to create transgressions—that is, that sins might take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption aroused." This interpretation is favored by the language of Paul in Rom. 5: 20; 7: 7-9, and by his discussion below. See ver. 22 and 24. It is the office of the law to awaken in men the consciousness of sin, in order that they may feel the need of a Saviour; for such is the nature of sinful men, as even heathen writers have confessed, that they are provoked by just restraint, and are sure to covet what is 20. Now a mediator is not (a mediator) forbidden. Hence, conscious transgression is of one; but God is one. This language is increased by a clear revelation of the law confessedly dark. A great truth is hinted, which it breaks, and the soul is made, at the rather than fully expressed. 'A mediator' same time, distinctly aware of its perverse (for the definite article in the Greek here self-will and inclination to wrong doing. It marks the noun as generic), it is said in the is, then, perfectly plain that actual transgres- first clause, does not belong to one; and this sion is often occasioned by law; and therefore implies that he belongs to two, and that a the proximate purpose of law may be to mul- covenant established between two, through tiply transgressions, though, in case of the the service of a mediator, must, from the divine law, its ultimate purpose is certainly to nature of the case, depend for its fulfillment prepare the way for salvation through Christ. upon both. Thus was it, the apostle suggests, This is plainly asserted by the apostle in the in the giving of the law through Moses. The sequel. Till the seed should come to blessing of it was conditioned upon its being whom the promise was (hath been) made honored by the people as well as by God. (literally, given). According to ver. 16, 'But God is one,' and in giving the promise 'the seed' must be Christ; and it is implied he acted without a mediator, and made the that the functions of the law were to become fulfillment of his promise independent of far less important after his coming. Indeed, human works. Says Sieffert: "The thought the ritual parts of it were to be annulled and of ver. 20 in its historical application is the the moral parts assigned to their true place in following: The law is inferior to the promise, the New Economy. Hence, all that was strictly because the mediator of it does not belong to dictinctive in the law of Moses was to pass God alone, but to him and the people of Israel away. And it was ordained by (through) at the same time, and this can only mean angels in (or, by) the hand of a mediator. what was intimated in ver. 15-18, that the The law was thus given. Being ordained, law, as a covenant relation, mediately estabor, having been ordained, would be a literal lished between God and the people, and deversion of the Greek, but less readable En- pending for its validity upon the conduct of glish than the one adopted by the Revisers. the people, can only represent the conditioned "By the hand of a mediator"; namely, will of God, but cannot, as the promise given 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? | 21 mediator of one; but God is one. Is the law then 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 shouid afterwards be revealed. directly by himself, be an adequate expression of his absolute will, of his eternally valid purpose of salvation." 1 against the promises of God? God forbid for it there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. 22 Howbeit the scripture shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should and especially the law which it reveals, a law which shows every man to be a transgressor, having the guilt of sin resting upon him. The neuter, rendered 'all things,' is evidently used for the sake of emphasis in place of "all men." The object of God in giving the law was to bring men to a clearer and more pungent consciousness of sin, by making it take the form of definite transgressions. In other words, it was to make them understand their real inner life, their alienation from himself, and their need of his grace. In the last clause, 'the promise' is equivalent to the fulfillment of the condition of faith in Jesus Christ; while the special importance of faith is shown by the double reference to it in the words, ‘by faith in Jesus Christ,' and in the final expression, 21. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid ! (Let it not be !) The connection between this verse and the preceding may be thus stated: "Having shown that the law is inferior to the promises, must we go a step further and conclude that it works against them, that it does anything to prevent their fulfillment or to render them less necessary to human salvation? Let such a thought never enter the mind! It is incredible. For, in the first place, it does not super-promise, and 'by faith in Jesus Christ,' to on sede the promise and render its fulfillment useless, for it cannot give spiritual life, justification, peace with God. (Ver. 21.) And, in the second place, it prepares men for the grace which was promised through Christ by awak-'to them that believe.' Looking at salvation ening in their hearts a sense of sin, and leading them to the Saviour. For if there had been a law given which could have given life (make alive), verily righteousness should (would) have been of the law. In this way, and in this alone, could the law work against the fulfillment of the promises. But, as before proved, it has no power to deliver men from sin and death. Its purpose is far humbler, though exceedingly important; and this purposed work of the law the apostle at once proceeds to explain. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded (shut up) all (things) under sin, that the promise by faith of (in) Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. By 'the Scripture' must be meant the Old Testament, from the human side, it depends not upon works of obedience to the law, but upon faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of lost men. Even the law itself was intended to compel men to distrust the possibility of justification before God on the ground of obedience, and to trust alone in the mercy of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Thus the law is not 'against the promises,' but subservient to them. เ 23. But before faith (or, better, the faith) came, we were kept (kept in ward) under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. "The faith' here means the system of doctrine of which faith is a distinguishing feature-the faith system. Compare Jude 3: "I was con feriority to the promise in the fact that a mediator appertains, not to one, but to many. Thus Moses acted for the whole people. 3. Those which are too capricious and diverse to be brought under any one point of view. 1 More than three hundred different explanations of | Mosaic Law in the first clause, with a proof of its inthe thought intended by this verse are said to have been given. The statement seems incredible, but human ingenuity is boundless. In the last edition of Meyer's "Commentary," Sieffert reduces 'the weightiest modern explanations' to three classes: 1. Those which find in the first half of the verse a tacit reference to the Mosaic Law, and a proof of its inferiority to the promise in the fact that a Mediator naturally implies two parties. 2. Those which find a tacit reference to the Under each of these heads several expositors are named, and the special features of their interpretations criticised. Sieffert's explanation belongs to the first class. |