Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Galatians 3:15 - 3:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Gal_3:15-18.)
(Gal_3:16-22. The Epistle for 13th Sunday after Trinity)
I speak after the manner of men.— Êáôὰ ἄíèñùðïí . Paul thus excuses himself for comparing a man’s äéáèÞêç with a äéáèÞêç of God, he will not (he says) regard the matter from a higher point of view, but simply according to the analogy of human relations. [Calvin: “By this expression he intended to put them to the blush. It is highly disgraceful and base that the testimony of God should have less weight with us than that of a mortal man.”—R.]
ÄéáèÞêç is not to be taken here in the sense of covenant (although approved by Meyer and Wieseler). [See below.—R.] The sense is that of Testament. It is true God made with Abraham a covenant, hence God’s covenant of promise with Abraham is here spoken of. But in these verses, Paul takes up this covenant in the aspect of a Testament, in order to emphasize the fact that in it God has made a free promise (of an inheritance) in contrast with the law, which imposes injunctions, making everything depend on merit. This character of the covenant of promise reminds him of a human Testament, and the principles of jurisprudence which are valid with respect to such an instrument, furnish the basis of his argument. [The majority of modern commentators take the other view. The reason here advanced is based upon the idea of “inheritance,” which belongs to a covenant as well as to a Testament. The usage of the LXX. is decidedly in favor of the rendering “covenant.” So the New Testament usage (the exceptional case, Heb_9:15-17, beginning with this idea also). So that while doctrinally considered it is not of much moment (Calvin, who however prefers the meaning “covenant”), the order of the words and the comparison require this meaning (Ellicott). Comp. Bagge, Meyer, Lightfoot. The influence of the Vulgate in substituting “Testament” for “covenant” in the name of the two parts of the Bible is perhaps to be deplored.—R.]
No man annulleth—i. e., of course, legitimately. [̔́ Ïìùò belongs here logically. But the sense is well preserved in the E. V.—R.]—Addeth thereto = adds specifications to it, of any kind whatever.—From what is true of a human Testament [or covenant], Paul now argues as to the Testament [or covenant] of God; this also “no one annulleth or addeth thereto”—“no one” and hence not “the law” either. But before he draws this conclusion (Gal_3:17), he furnishes (Gal_3:16) the necessary premises for it (Wieseler). He does this, by showing that the äéáèÞêç referred to the time after as well as before the giving of the law, and in substance remains still in force, without which necessary link the demonstration, that the law made no change in the character of the äéáèÞêç , would be without value or meaning. For if the äéáèÞêç had been of limited duration, confined to Abraham for instance, if the promise had been made only to him, it would, when the law came, have been long before fulfilled and thereby done away; the two would not have come in contact. But this is not the case.
Gal_3:16.—Now to Abraham were the promises made [lit., were spoken], and to his seed.—This, as shown by “were spoken,” and still more by what follows refers to particular passages, and such moreover as contain the clause “and to thy seed” as also the promise of an “inheritance;” not, therefore, such as Gen_22:18[?], but Gen_13:15; Gen_17:8 (and according to the LXX. also Gen_24:17). The sense is therefore: not merely to Abraham was there in the äéáèÞêç a promise, sc., of an inheritance, made by God, but also to his seed; the äéáèÞêç was not exhausted in him, but was valid also for his seed. But especially must it be shown that it has validity even now. Therefore, says Paul, inasmuch as these promises were given “also to the seed of Abraham,” they were given also to Christ. This seed of Abraham (he says), is indeed no other than Christ. This, he says, follows from the very fact of the singular form “his seed” being used. “In order to explain this emphasizing of the singular form in the exegesis of Paul, appeal has been made to the fact that the Rabbins of his time also now and then strain the singular or plural to serve an exegetical turn, and in the passages Gen_4:25; Gen_19:32, themselves explain æֶøַò of the Messiah. This comparison is admissible, if only we do not overlook the extraordinary contrast which exists between ordinary Rabbinical caprice, and Paul’s exposition in this passage. That in the Abrahamic promise the idea of the Messiah is concealed, and that the ‘seed of Abraham’ may be actually understood of the Messiah, is unquestionably the true view, on which the whole exposition of Paul rests, and which he has a little before demonstrated from the connection of Scripture and the deepest reality of the fulfilled truth. But the form in which he, in this passage, rather casually than otherwise, expresses this view, correct in itself, namely, that it is already indicated by the use of the singular in the text which gives the Abrahamic promise, appears to demand the explanation given by most interpreters, as derived from the Rabbinical training of his youth.” Wieseler.
[The ground of this assumption of Rabbinical method in his argumentation is this: that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; the Hebrew word, which he renders óðÝñìá , having no plural answering to óðÝñìáôá or “seeds.” Granting this, it must yet be remembered that the consequences involved in an admission of such “playing” with Divine truth, in a writer, who claims to speak for God, are too grave, to permit us to make such an admission hastily. Is there no other reasonably satisfactory explanation, which denies any Rabbinical influence, implying the slightest quibbling? If there be, justice to such a writer as Paul, aside from any reverence for this Epistle as inspired, should lead us to adopt it. Jerome’s application of êáôὰ ἄíèñùðïí to this verse is hardly allowable. He would not intentionally weaken his own cause thus. Lightfoot well says: “It is quite as unnatural to use the Greek plural with this meaning as the Hebrew. This fact points to St. Paul’s meaning. He is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where ôὰ ôÝêíá or ïἱ ἀðüãïíïé , for instance, might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition ‘not to thy seeds, but to thy seed.’ The singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality, at the same time involves the idea of unity.” Ellicott: “We hold that there is as certainly a mystical meaning in the use of æֶøַò in Gen_13:15; Gen_17:8, as there is an argument for the resurrection in Exo_3:6, though in neither case was the writer necessarily aware of it. As the word in its simple meaning generally denotes not the mere progeny of a man, but his posterity viewed as one organically-connected whole; so here in its mystical meaning it denotes not merely the spiritual posterity of Abraham, but Him in whom that posterity is all organically united, the ðëÞñùìá , the êåöáëÞ even Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly to convey to his Greek readers by the use of óðÝïìá and óðÝñìáôá .” Comp. Wordsworth, Olshausen in loco. How Pauline this conception is, will appear to every student of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Paul’s Rabbinical training undoubtedly made him quick and close in discrimination respecting the Old Testament; that it ever made him quibble, and institute false distinctions is against his character as well as against his inspiration.—R.]
That any explanation of the passage which maintains that Paul does not mean to interpret “seed” of the person of Christ is incorrect, needs no proof. [Against this, see Alford in loco.—R.] Doubtless, secondarily, those who are “of Christ” are also “the seed of Abraham” (Gal_3:29), but it is only because, primarily, Christ is this seed. This reference of “seed” to the person of Christ is not disproved by alleging that thereby the äéáèÞêç , the inheritance would be promised to Christ as well as to Abraham. But, it may be asked, is then the inheritance promised to Christ; is He designated as the Heir, and not rather as the Mediator and Bringer of the inheritance? Doubtless the latter, but primarily He is Himself the universal Heir; therefore in Gal_3:19 he is called distinctly the universal Heir: “the seed to whom the promise was made.” Let us only vividly apprehend the course of prophecy that sketches the history of redemption. The Messiah Himself, according to it, is He who occupies the promised inheritance, that is, who takes full and abiding possession of it, and by this very fact, brings in the time of salvation and of God’s kingdom. The conception is therefore one somewhat different from that in Gal_3:14, but both are equally according to truth, and the two modes of conception are most intimately connected. For Christ is certainly the Heir, only, He is the Heir in order to procure for His people the participation of the inheritance and therewith the blessing of God. And, as is self-evident, it is this truth, namely, that He in turn brings the inheritance into the possession of His people, which is here mainly in mind. Inasmuch as the äéáèÞêç had reference to Him, it had and has reference also to those that are “Christ’s”; the question as to them therefore still remains to be answered; nay, it is as to them that it occurs, how they become partakers of the inheritance promised in the covenant. For that the covenant with the promise of the inheritance is valid also for the Christian dispensation, that it is “confirmed by God to Christ,” is only one side of the truth. On the other side it was maintained with reference to the law that had come between, that the attainment of the inheritance had now become encumbered with the condition of the fulfilment of the law, that it came now of the law and no more simply “of promise.” This assertion Paul now opposes, by applying what was said in Gal_3:5 about a covenant in general, to the covenant of God.
Gal_3:17. A covenant that has been before confirmed by God to Christ.—This passage, as Wieseler says, is rightly understood only by considering that the assertion which Paul undertakes to refute is not the assertion of an entire abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant by the law, but only that of a modification in the Judaistic sense by the law of an invalidating, so that it should make void the promise (which would be an “invalidating,” because thereby the character of the covenant as a promise given by grace, and thus its specific peculiarity would be taken away). This alone gives the sense of Gal_3:18 : I have a right to say: it “does not invalidate that it should make void the promise;” for if the inheritance is obtained by law, it no longer comes “of promise;” but “of promise” it is to come, for it was assured by God to Abraham through promise, and of grace. We cannot therefore concede an invalidating, so that the promise is made void through the law, for this would take away something essential to the covenant; but, according to Gal_3:15, this cannot be.—[Various interpretations of åἰò ×ñéóôüí have been suggested. The simplest and most obvious one is: “unto Christ,” i.e., as the second party to whom the covenant was ratified. Ellicott suggests “to be fulfilled in Christ,” and renders “for Christ.” Perhaps that of Wordsworth is implied: “unto Christ: so as to tend toward, and be consummated in Christ as its end, who, as man, sums up all Abraham’s seed in Himself.” But on the whole it is best to reject the words as a gloss.—R.]
The law which was four hundred and thirty years after.—Paul has taken the number from Exo_12:40, but apparently from the text of the LXX. which adds êáὶ ἐí ãῇ ×áíáÜí thus including the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan (as do also the Samaritan text and Josephus Ant., 2, 15, 3), while according to the Hebrew text this number covers only the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. Therefore “it is hardly to be said, that Paul has here made a mistake of memory, but only that, on account of his Greek-speaking readers, who used the Septuagint, he has here, as commonly in his Old Testament citations, adhered to the tradition of the LXX., which he could the more easily do, because the precise numbers of the years was a matter of no moment.” Wieseler. [Though the precise number is of no moment as respects Paul’s argument, the chronological difficulty is a grave one. The period from the call of Abraham to the departure of Jacob into Egypt is fixed at two hundred and fifteen years. The question is: must we compute the sojourn there as extending over four hundred and thirty years, or only two hundred and fifteen years. The Hebrew text, Exo_12:40, seems to demand the former term (and also Stephen, Act_7:6, “four hundred years,” as in the prophecy Gen_15:13, both of which passages give round numbers). The latter term is that of the commonly received chronology. If it be adopted, the difficulty is thrown mainly upon the passage, Exo_12:40, to which the LXX. add as above. Alford and Ellicott suggest this strong point in favor of the shorter term, viz., that from the data respecting ages and births, the longer term would make the age of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, at least two hundred and fifty-six years when Moses was born. So that the longer term makes the accurate statement of numbers overthrow the accurate statement of genealogies and events, which was far less likely to be tampered with. The gloss, if it be a gloss, of the LXX. affords the easiest solution of the difficulty, and Gen. 15:40, Act_7:6, are then to be explained in the same way. Comp. Usher, Windischmann, Hales.—R.]
Gal_3:18. But God hath freely granted it to Abraham through promise.—Prominence is to be given to the fact that God has .not limited His promise, which He gave to Abraham, by conditioning it on a fulfilment of the law, but that it was a promise of pure grace; therefore, says Paul, God has, out of grace, by means of promise, bestowed, s. c., the inheritance on Abraham, i. e., not put him in actual possession, but assured it to him. The two expressions, “freely granted,” and “through promise,” are conjoined to exclude most definitely the idea “of the law.”
2. The Law is not a complement of the Covenant of Promise. It is not till in the next section that the purpose and meaning of the law, and its relation to the covenant of promise, are expounded positively. The negative proof, however, here adduced, is of itself important; viz.: That the law is not, and is not to be regarded or treated as a complement and rectification of the Covenant of Promise, so that whatever at first was freely promised as a boon “should be now encumbered with a burdensome condition.” Or rather, this was so, indeed, but only for a time, for a definite season (as is shown afterwards). In this way, however, the inheritance was not actually attained, but as it was originally assured purely by promise, so is it now attained only through faith, the subjective correlative of the promise; and only this is required.
[3. The sum of the Apostle’s argument. “This, then, is the sum of the Apostle’s argument: A ratified, unrepealed constitution, cannot be set aside by a subsequent constitution. The plan of justification by believing was a ratified and unrepealed constitution. The law was a constitution posterior to this by a long term of years. If the observance of the law were constituted the procuring cause or necessary means of justification, such a constitution would necessarily annul the covenant before ratified, and render the promise of more effect. It follows, of course, that the law was appointed for no such purpose. Whatever end it might serve, it could not serve this end; it could never be appointed to serve this end.”—Brown. What end it serves, the Apostle states in the section immediately following.—R.]
4. Christ the Seed of Abraham. “ ‘Seed,’ comprehends posterity generally, and therefore of course a plurality. But among this posterity one nevertheless was found upon whom the whole expectation of faith was directed, and through whom also all promise first received its fulfilment. As Christ at His actual coming into the world humiliated Himself to live as a man among men, and had to be discovered and sought out by means of the words and works that were His alone, in like manner was He in the promise also concealed, as it were, among the seed, or among the collective posterity of Abraham, so that only when the time was fulfilled could any plainly distinguish Him and say: This is Christ, this is He who sanctifies and blesses, who yet is of the same descent with those that are sanctified and blessed; therefore also He is not ashamed to call them brethren, and it was not unbefitting Him, that all should be comprehended in the one Seed.”—Rieger.
Gal_3:16.—Spener: In the Holy Scripture all is written with Divine wisdom, therefore no word, no letter, no arrangement of the words is settled at random.—Divine truth must be found in the Holy Scripture itself and the letter of it, and may not be expected by separate communication from the Holy Ghost. Else Paul could not insist upon a little word and thereupon rest his argument.—[Paul, who takes such a broad view of the Scriptures as the one great history of Redemption, is the one who notices the truth in the least details of the word. One need not be a loose expositor, in order to have broad views; the accurate reader is not contracted by his accuracy.—R.]
Gal_3:17. STARKE: Sacred chronology gives a great light, for a more accurate insight into the ways of God.—[How many read their Bibles, as if the whole were written at one time. They acknowledge a history there, but it sheds no light for them upon the great truth of God as a whole.—Abraham and Moses. How prominent, how related.—How often the followers of Christ stop at Moses, when they ought to go back to Abraham!—The covenant was confirmed of God to Christ. Through Abraham, indeed, yet It is essentially a covenant between God and our Redeemer. So the Old Covenant is the new and everlasting Covenant.—R. ]
Gal_3:18. Starke It is impossible to have righteousness and salvation partly from the works of the law, and partly from grace. For these are opposing things, that destroy one another. It must either be of works alone or of grace alone; now it is not of works, therefore it is of grace alone.—Rieger:—So long, indeed, as the human heart in falsehood still parts its love between light and darkness, nothing were more pleasing, than if it could thus turn from side to side between the promise and its own merit, that is, if, so far as might be, it could boast itself of merit and the law, and where these were too scant, could put forward, under cover of the promise, the grace and merit of Christ. Then, moreover, there would be in this way no great need of going deep in either quarter; it would only be to bend a little to the law, and as to the appropriation of grace, it need not call for any very special humility. But with such a divided heart, one has neither access to grace, nor entrance into the everlasting inheritance.
All that we have from the Gospel or from the promise, is a gift, a free gift of grace, and nothing is attained by obedience as a condition. We are not, therefore, to regard a godly life as a condition of obtaining the blessings of grace, but as a part of the grace itself which the Lord shows us—[How old this method of grace by covenant of promise ! Older than Moses. Yet how new! for we never apprehend it until God reveals it to us by His spirit, and then it seems as though it were a revelation of something entirely new.—The benefits of the gospel are all through promise. Hence all of grace, all to faith, all for the glory of the Promiser!—R.]