Galatians 3:15

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men - I draw an illustration from what actually occurs among people. The illustration is, that when a contract or agreement is made by people involving obligations and promises, no one can add to it or take from it. It will remain as it was originally made. So with God. He made a solemn promise to Abraham. That promise pertained to his posterity. The blessing was connected with that promise, and it was of the nature of a compact with Abraham. But if so, then this could not be effected by the Law which was four hundred years after, and the Law must have been given to secure some different object from that designed by the promise made to Abraham, Gal 3:19. But the promise made to Abraham was designed to secure the “inheritance,” or the favor of God; and if so, then the same thing could not be secured by the observance of the Law, since there could not be two ways so unlike each other of obtaining the same thing.

God cannot have two ways of justifying and saving people; and if he revealed a mode to Abraham, and that mode was by faith, then it could not be by the observance of the Law which was given so long after. The main design of the argument and the illustration here (Gal 3:15 ff) is to show that the promise made to Abraham was by no means made void by the giving of the Law. The Law had another design, which did not interfere with the promise made to Abraham. That stood on its own merits, irrespective of the demands and the design of the Law. It is possible, as Rosenmuller suggests, that Paul may have had his eye on an objection to his view. The objection may have been that there were important acts of legislation which succeeded the promise made to Abraham, and that that promise must have been superseded by the giving of the Law. To this he replies that the Mosaic law given at a late period could not take away or nullify a solemn promise made to Abraham, but that it was intended for a different purpose.

Though it be but a man’s covenant - A compact or agreement between man and man. Even in such a case no one can add to it or take from it. The argument here is, that such a covenant or agreement must be much less important than a promise made by God. But even that could not be annulled. How much less, therefore, could a covenant made by God be treated as if it were vain. The word “covenant” here (διαθήκη diathēkē) is in the margin rendered “Testament;” that is, will. So Tyndale renders it. Its proper Classical signification is will or testament, though in the Septuagint and in the New Testament it is the word which is used to denote a covenant or compact; see the note at Act 3:25. Here it is used in the proper sense of the word covenant, or compact; a mutual agreement between man and man. The idea is, that where such a covenant exists; where the faith of a man is solemnly pledged in this manner, no change can be made in the agreement. It is ratified, and firm, and final. “If it be confirmed.” By a seal or otherwise.

No man disannulleth ... - It must stand. No one can change it. No new conditions can be annexed; nor can there be any drawing back from its terms. It binds the parties to a faithful fulfillment of all the conditions. This is well understood among people; and the apostle says that the same thing must take place in regard to God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Gal_3:15

Though it be but a mans covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Covenants

I. It is allowable to use human analogies in the enforcement of divine truth--after the manner of men.

II. The conditions of covenant-making in human life.

1. A covenant is an arrangement between two parties for mutual benefit, with an implied character of permanence.

2. The covenant stands in all the integrity of its provisions without either party having the power to annul it or add fresh clauses to it.

III. What is tree of a human covenant is essentially involved in the idea of a Divine covenant. It is irreversible and irrevocable, since it is a covenant established by oath.

IV. The Judaistic theory: the law as a supplement would entirely abrogate the covenant. (Professor Crosskerry.)

The whole new covenant consists in these two words--Christ and faith--Christ bestowed on Gods part; faith required on ours--Christ the matter; faith the consideration of the covenant. (Hammond.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. This identity of the Abrahamic and Christian faith-covenant is not broken by the Mosaic interval of law, Gal_3:15-18.

God’s engagement to Abraham to bless the nations in his Seed (namely, Christ) was a complete, immutable compact; under it, and not by the law, the inheritance of Canaan was held. That underlying compact lasted throughout the age of the Mosaic law until Christ.

15. Brethren—The distinct treatment of the blessed compact with Abraham calls up the apostle’s more tender emotions, and he begins it with a fraternal word in a gentler tone.

Manner of men—As men speak and think in their business contracts.

But a man’s—Even then its conditions are held binding and permanent; how much more if it be God’s covenant or contract.

Confirmed—Put into its completed shape and made binding upon the faith of the parties.

No man disannulleth—Except by a new agreement on both sides.

Addeth—Neither party can change the terms or add to them. In our constitutional governments it is a fundamental principle that legislatures cannot impair contracts.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Gal_3:17. The covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law cannot disannul.—From the recognised inviolability of a human covenant (Gal_3:15), the apostle argues the impossibility of violating the divine covenant. The law cannot set aside the promise.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gal_3:15-18

The Divine Covenant of Promise—

I. Is less susceptible of violation than any human covenant.—“Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed [approved], no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto” (Gal_3:15). Common equity demands that a contract made between man and man is thoroughly binding, and should be rigidly observed; and the civil law lends all its force to maintain the integrity of its clauses. How much more certain it is that the divine covenant shall be faithfully upheld. If it is likely that a human covenant will not be interfered with, it is less likely the divine covenant will be changed. Yet even a human covenant may fail; the divine covenant never. It is based on the divine word which cannot fail, and its validity is pledged by the incorruptibility of the divine character (Mal_3:6).

II. Is explicit in defining the channel of its fulfilment.—“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; … to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal_3:16). The promise is in the plural because the same promise was often repeated (Gen_12:3; Gen_12:7; Gen_15:5; Gen_15:18; Gen_17:7; Gen_22:18), and because it involved many things—earthly blessings to the literal children of Abraham in Canaan, and spiritual and heavenly blessings to his spiritual children; and both promised to Christ—the Seed and representative Head of the literal and spiritual Israel alike. Therefore the promise that in him “all families of the earth shall be blessed” joins in this one Seed—Christ—Jew and Gentile, as fellow-heirs on the same terms of acceptability—by grace through faith; not to some by promise, to others by the law, but to all alike, circumcised and uncircumcised, constituting but one seed in Christ. The law, on the other hand, contemplates the Jews and Gentiles as distinct seeds. God makes a covenant, but it is one of promise; whereas the law is a covenant of works. God makes His covenant of promise with the one Seed—Christ—and embraces others only as they are identified with and represented by Him (Fausset).

III. Cannot be set aside by the law which was a subsequent revelation.—“The covenant, … the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul” (Gal_3:17). The promise to Abraham was a prior settlement, and must take precedence, not only in time but also in authority, of the Mosaic law. It was a bold stroke of the apostle to thus shatter the supremacy of Mosaism; but the appeal to antiquity was an argument the most prejudiced Jew was bound to respect. “The law of Moses has its rights; it must be taken into account as well as the promise to Abraham. True; but it has no power to cancel or restrict the promise, older by four centuries and a half. The later must be adjusted to the earlier dispensation, the law interpreted by the promise. God has not made two testaments—the one solemnly committed to the faith and hope of mankind, only to be retracted and substituted by something of a different stamp. He could not thus stultify Himself. And we must not apply the Mosaic enactments, addressed to a single people, in such a way as to neutralise the original provisions made for the race at large. Our human instincts of good faith, our reverence for public compacts and established rights, forbid our allowing the law of Moses to trench upon the inheritance assured to mankind in the covenant of Abraham” (Findlay).

IV. Imposed no conditions of legal obedience.—“If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Gal_3:18). The law is a system of conditions—so much advantage to be gained by so much work done. This is all very well as a general principle. But the promise of God is based on a very different ground. It is an act of free, sovereign grace, engaging to confer certain blessings without demanding anything more from the recipient than faith, which is just the will to receive. The law imposes obligations man is incompetent to meet. The promise offers blessings all men need and all may accept. It simply asks the acceptance of the blessings by a submissive and trustful heart. The demands of the law are met and the provisions of the covenant of promise enjoyed by an act of faith.

Lessons.—

1. God has a sovereign right to give or withhold blessing.

2. The divine covenant of promise is incapable of violation.

3. Faith in God is the simplest and sublimest method of obedience.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Gal_3:15-18. The Promise a Covenant confirmed.

I. The promises made to Abraham are first made to Christ, and then in Christ to all that believe in Him.—

1. Learn the difference of the promises of the law and the gospel. The promises of the law are directed and made to the person of every man particularly; the promises of the gospel are first directed and made to Christ, and then by consequent to them that are by faith ingrafted into Christ.

2. We learn to acknowledge the communion that is between Christ and us. Christ died upon the cross, not as a private person, but as a public person representing His people. All died in Him, and with Him; in the same manner they must rise with Him to life.

3. Here is comfort against the consideration of our unworthiness. There is dignity and worthiness sufficient in Him. Our salvation stands in this, not that we know and apprehend Him, but that He knows and apprehends us first of all.

II. The promise made to Abraham was a covenant confirmed by oath.—Abraham in the first making and in the confirmation thereof must be considered as a public person representing all the faithful. Here we see God’s goodness. We are bound simply to believe His bare word; yet in regard of our weakness He ratifies His promise by oath, that there might be no occasion of unbelief. What can we more require of Him?

III. If the promise might be disannulled, the law could not do it.—

1. The promise, or covenant, was made with Abraham, and continued by God four hundred and thirty years before the law was given.

2. If the law abolish the promise, then the inheritance must come by the law. But that cannot be. If the inheritance of eternal life be by the law, it is no more by the promise. But it is by the promise, because God gave it unto Abraham freely by promise; therefore it comes not by the law. This giving was no private but a public donation. That which was given to Abraham was in him given to all that should believe as he did.—Perkins.

Gal_3:15-17. Divine and Human Covenants.

I. A covenant, as between man and man, is honourably binding (Gal_3:15).

II. The divine covenant made to Abraham ensures the fulfilment of promises to all who believe as Abraham did (Gal_3:16).

III. The law cannot abrogate the divine covenant of promise (Gal_3:17).

Gal_3:18. Law and Promise.—

1. So subtle is the spirit of error that it will seem to cede somewhat to truth, intending to prejudice the truth more than if it had ceded nothing. The opposers of justification by faith did sometimes give faith some place in justification, and pleaded for a joint influence of works and faith, of law and promise.

2. The state of grace here and glory hereafter is the inheritance of the Lord’s people, of which the land of Canaan was a type. There are only two ways of attaining a right to this inheritance—one by law, the other by promise.

3. There can be no mixture of these two, so that a right to heaven should be obtained partly by the merit of works and partly by faith in the promise. The only way of attaining it is by God’s free gift, without the merit of works.—Fergusson.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

(Gal_3:15-18.)

(Gal_3:16-22. The Epistle for 13th Sunday after Trinity)

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

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

Gal_3:15.—[Brethren.—An affectionately pathetic address. How different from Gal_3:1! The tone is greatly softened.—Meyer. “Here is a pause, at which the indignant feeling of the Apostle softens, and he begins the new train of thought which follows with words of milder character, and proceeds more quietly with his argument” (Windischmann).—R.]

I speak after the manner of men.—Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. Paul thus excuses himself for comparing a man’s διαθήκη with a διαθήκη 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.]

Διαθήκη 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. [̔́Ομως 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 διαθήκη 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 διαθήκη, would be without value or meaning. For if the διαθήκη 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 διαθήκη a promise, sc., of an inheritance, made by God, but also to his seed; the διαθήκη 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 זֶרַע 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 σπέρμα, having no plural answering to σπέρματα 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 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον 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 τὰ τέκνα or οἱ ἀπόγονοι, 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 זֶרַע 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 πλήρωμα, the κεφαλή even Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly to convey to his Greek readers by the use of σπέομα and σπέρματα.” 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 διαθήκη, 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 διαθήκη 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 εἰς Χριστόν 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 καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν 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.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Epochs of Revelation. In the preceding section, as well as this, Paul has not cared to conduct a Scripture demonstration merely by the citation of isolated passages, but has used a freer and nobler method with the Scriptures. He showed in the revelation of God to Abraham a prophetic setting forth of the perfect revelation of God exhibited in Christ (especially at the close of Gal_3:14 had this become evident), and thus placed the Scripture in the light of a history of the revelation of redemption. This view of it has become, in the present section (as far as to Gal_4:2), the controlling one. The law also here constitutes for him an epoch of the revelation of God, so that there are three of these epochs represented by Abraham, Moses, and Christ. They are not, however, simple stages of development, but the first and the third belong essentially together in one order, as germ and fruit; for the middle epoch, so diverse in character, a false claim is made, which it is his endeavor to refute, and to assign and establish its just position.—The suggestions which Paul here gives are important starting points for a just historical apprehension of Revelation, and at the same time an example of a proper adjustment of relations and reconciliation of apparent contradictions in it.

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

[3. The sum of the 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.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.

Gal_3:15.—“Brethren.”—Rieger: By this address the Apostle noticeably softens the sharpness used in the first verse. Nothing calls for so much consideration, for so thorough a mingling of sharpness and gentleness, as when men fall back under the law and the blindness as to the gospel conjoined therewith. For the bewitching arts of the prince of this world, which are implied therein, and the mischief to be feared therefrom, demand sharpness; the hunger and thirst after righteousness yet alive in the conscience, and the love to the truth, demand to be appealed to with the utmost possible tenderness.—In the word of God throughout there is much condescension to our weakness, or much that is presented in human style, suitable to our power of comprehension. God has also actually so arranged it, that between the visible and the invisible, between the ordinances in the realm of nature and in the realm of grace there is much that is similar, and we therefore through the images furnished us by our experience in human life, obtain a true conception of the ordinances of grace. The Incarnation of the Son of God has such an influence on the whole economy of God forward and backwards, that God everywhere deals with us after the manner of a man.—Lange:—Human ordinances and institutions, which in themselves serve for the outward well-being of human and civil society, are in themselves not to be contemned. Since God counts them worthy that His apostles should therewith make clearer the economy of His kingdom.—In Starke:—If a great lord gives us his hand and seal, we are satisfied and believe, that the heavens will fall before such a promise will be broken. Why do we not rather trust the sealed handwriting of our God who cannot lie.—“Addeth thereto.”—In divine things the human addition is often discernible, but very improperly, often causing that nothing pure is left.—[So the annulling by the addition of the law would make void the promise.—R.]

Gal_3:16.—Spener: In the Holy Scripture all is written with Divine wisdom, therefore no word, no letter, no arrangement of the words is settled at random.—Divine truth must be found in the Holy Scripture itself and the letter of it, and may not be expected by separate communication from the Holy Ghost. Else Paul could not insist upon a little word and thereupon rest his argument.—[Paul, who takes such a broad view of the Scriptures as the one great history of Redemption, is the one who notices the truth in the least details of the word. One need not be a loose expositor, in order to have broad views; the accurate reader is not contracted by his accuracy.—R.]

Gal_3:17. STARKE: Sacred chronology gives a great light, for a more accurate insight into the ways of God.—[How many read their Bibles, as if the whole were written at one time. They acknowledge a history there, but it sheds no light for them upon the great truth of God as a whole.—Abraham and Moses. How prominent, how related.—How often the followers of Christ stop at Moses, when they ought to go back to Abraham!—The covenant was confirmed of God to Christ. Through Abraham, indeed, yet It is essentially a covenant between God and our Redeemer. So the Old Covenant is the new and everlasting Covenant.—R. ]

Gal_3:18. Starke It is impossible to have righteousness and salvation partly from the works of the law, and partly from grace. For these are opposing things, that destroy one another. It must either be of works alone or of grace alone; now it is not of works, therefore it is of grace alone.—Rieger:—So long, indeed, as the human heart in falsehood still parts its love between light and darkness, nothing were more pleasing, than if it could thus turn from side to side between the promise and its own merit, that is, if, so far as might be, it could boast itself of merit and the law, and where these were too scant, could put forward, under cover of the promise, the grace and merit of Christ. Then, moreover, there would be in this way no great need of going deep in either quarter; it would only be to bend a little to the law, and as to the appropriation of grace, it need not call for any very special humility. But with such a divided heart, one has neither access to grace, nor entrance into the everlasting inheritance.

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

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

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 13

THE COVENANT OF PROMISE.

Gal_3:15-18

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

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

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

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

This passage finds its counterpart in Romans 11. Here the past, there the future fortunes of Israel are set forth. Together the two chapters form a Jewish theodicy, a vindication of Gods treatment of the chosen people from first to last. Rom_5:12-21 and 1Co_15:20-57 supply a wider exposition, on the same principles, of the fortunes of mankind at large. The human mind has conceived nothing more splendid and yet sober, more humbling and exalting, than the view of mans history and destiny thus sketched out.

The Apostle seeks to establish, in the first place, the fixedness of the Abrahamic covenant. This is the main purport of the passage. At the same time, in Gal_3:16, he brings into view the object of the covenant, the person designated by it - Christ, its proper Heir. This consideration, though stated here parenthetically, lies at the basis of the settlement made with Abraham; its importance is made manifest by the after-course of Pauls exposition.

At this point, where the discussion opens out into its larger proportions, we observe that the sharp tone of personal feeling with which the chapter commenced has disappeared. In verse 15 {Gal_3:15} the writer drops into a conciliatory key. He seems to forget the wounded apostle in the theologian and instructor in Christ. "Brethren," he says, "I speak in human fashion - I put this matter in a way that every one will understand." He lifts himself above the Galatian quarrel, and from the height of his argument addresses himself to the common intelligence of mankind.

But is it covenant or testament that the Apostle intends here? "I speak after the manner of men," he continues; "if the case were that of a mans διαθήκη, once ratified, no one would set it aside, or add to it." The presumption is that the word is employed in its accepted, everyday significance. And that unquestionably was "testament." It would never occur to an ordinary Greek reader to interpret the expression otherwise. Philo and Josephus, the representatives of contemporary Hellenistic usage, read this term, in the Old Testament, with the connotation of διαθήκη, in current Greek. The context of this passage is in harmony with their usage. The "covenant" of Gal_3:15 corresponds to "the blessing of Abraham," and "the promise of the Spirit" in the two preceding verses. Again, in Gal_3:17, "promise" and "covenant" are synonymous. Now a covenant of promise amounts to a "testament." It is the prospective nature of the covenant, the bond which it creates between Abraham and the Gentiles, which the Apostle has been insisting on ever since verse 6. It belongs "to Abraham and to his seed"; it comes by way of gift and grace (Gal_3:18; Gal_3:22); it invests those taking part in it with "sonship" and rights of "inheritance" (Gal_3:18; Gal_3:26; Gal_3:29, etc.) These ideas cluster round the thought of a testament; they are not inherent in covenant, strictly considered. Even in the Old Testament this latter designation fails to convey all that belongs to the Divine engagements there recorded. In a covenant the two parties are conceived as equals in point of law, binding themselves by a compact that bears on each alike. Here it is not so. The disposition of affairs is made by God, who in the sovereignty of His grace "hath granted it to Abraham." It was surely a reverent sense of this difference which dictated to the men of the Septuagint the use of διαθηκη rather than συνθηκη the ordinary term for covenant or compact, in their rendering of the Hebrew berith.

This aspect of the covenants now becomes their commanding feature. Our Lords employment of this word at the Last Supper gave it the affecting reference to His death which it has conveyed ever since to the Christian mind. The Latin translators were guided by a true instinct when in the Scriptures of the New Covenant they wrote testamentum everywhere, not faedus or pactum, for this word. The testament is a covenant-and something more. The testator designates his heir, and binds himself to grant to him at the predetermined time {Gal_4:2} the specified boon, which it remains for the beneficiary simply to accept. Such a Divine testament has come down from Abraham to his Gentile sons.

1. Now when a man has made a testament, and it has been ratified-"proved," as we should say - it stands good for ever. No one has afterwards any power to set it aside, or to attach to it a new codicil, modifying its previous terms. There it stands-a document complete and unchangeable (Gal_3:15).

Such a testament God gave "to Abraham and his seed." It was "ratified" (or "confirmed") by the final attestation made to the patriarch after the supreme trial of his faith in the sacrifice of Isaac: "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." {Heb_6:17} In human testaments the ratification takes place through another; but God "having no greater," yet "to show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel" confirmed it by His own oath. Nothing was wanting to mark the Abrahamic covenant with an indelible character, and to show that it expressed an unalterable purpose in the mind of God.

With such Divine asseveration "were the promises spoken to Abraham, and his seed." This last word diverts the Apostles thoughts for a moment, and he gives a side-glance at the person thus designated in the terms of the promise. Then he returns to his former statement, urging it home against the Legalists: "Now this is what I mean: a testament, previously ratified by God, the Law which dates four hundred and thirty years later cannot annul, so as to abrogate the Promise" (Gal_3:17). The bearing of Pauls argument is now perfectly clear. He is using the promise to Abraham to overthrow the supremacy of the Mosaic law. The Promise was, he says, the prior settlement. No subsequent transaction could invalidate it or disqualify those entitled under it to receive the inheritance. That testament lies at the foundation of the sacred history. The Jew least of all could deny this. How could such an instrument be set aside? Or what right has any one to limit it by stipulations of a later date?

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

This contradiction necessarily arises if the Law is put on a level with the Promise. To read the Law as a continuation of the older instrument is virtually to efface the latter, to "make the promise of none effect." The two institutes proceed on opposite principles. "If the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise" (Gal_3:18). Law prescribes certain things to be done, and guarantees a corresponding reward-so much pay for so much work. That, in its proper place, is an excellent principle. But the promise stands on another footing: "God hath bestowed it on Abraham by way of grace" (κεχαριοται, ver. 18). It holds out a blessing conferred by the Promisers good will, to be conveyed at the right time without demanding anything more from the recipient than faith, which is just the will to receive. So God dealt with Abraham, centuries before any one had dreamed of the Mosaic system of law. God appeared to Abraham in His sovereign grace; Abraham met that grace with faith. So the Covenant was formed. And so it abides, clear of all legal conditions and claims of human merit, an "everlasting covenant". {Gen_17:7; Heb_13:20}

Its permanence is emphasised by the tense of the verb relating to it. The Greek perfect describes settled facts, actions or events that carry with them finality. Accordingly we read in Gal_3:15; Gal_3:17 of "a ratified covenant"-one that stands ratified: In Gal_3:18, "God hath granted it to Abraham"-a grace never to be recalled. Again (Gal_3:19), "the seed to whom the promise hath been made"-once for all. A perfect participle is used of the Law in Gal_3:17 (γεγονως), for it is a fact of abiding significance that it was so much later than the Promise; and in Gal_3:24, "the Law hath been our tutor," - its work in that respect is an enduring benefit. Otherwise the verbsrelating to Mosaism in this context are past in tense, describing what is now matter of history, a course of events that has come and gone. Meanwhile the Promise remains an immovable certainty, a settlement never to be disturbed. The emphatic position of ο θεος (Gal_3:18), at the very end of the paragraph, serves to heighten its effect. "It is God that hath bestowed this grace on Abraham." There is a challenge in the word, as though Paul asked, "Who shall make it void?"

Pauls chronology in Gal_3:17 has been called in question. We are not much concerned to defend it. Whether Abraham preceded Moses by four hundred and thirty years, as the Septuagint and the Samaritan text of Exo_12:40-41 affirm, and as Pauls contemporaries commonly supposed; or whether, as it stands in the Hebrew text of Exodus, this was the length of time covered by the sojourn in Egypt, so that the entire period would be about half as long again, is a problem that Old Testament historians must settle for themselves; it need not trouble the reader of Paul. The shorter period is amply sufficient for his purpose. If any one had said, "No, Paul; you are mistaken. It was six hundred and thirty, not four hundred and thirty years from Abraham to Moses"; he would have accepted the correction with the greatest good will. He might have replied, "So much the better for my argument." It is possible to "strain out" the "gnats" of Biblical criticism, and yet to swallow huge "camels" of improbability.

2. Gal_3:16 remains for our consideration. In proving the steadfastness of the covenant with Abraham, the Apostle at the same time directs our attention to the Person designated by it, to whom its fulfilment was guaranteed. "To Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed-to thy seed, which is Christ."

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

The fact that this Promise looked to Christ, lends additional force to the Apostles assertion of its indelibility. The words "unto Christ," which were inserted in the text of Gal_3:17 at an early time, are a correct gloss. The covenant did not lie between God and Abraham alone. It embraced Abrahams descendants in their unity, culminating in Christ. It looked down the stream of time to the last ages. Abraham was its starting-point; Christ its goal. "To thee-and to thy seed": these words span the gulf of two thousand years, and overarch the Mosaic dispensation. So that the covenant vouchsafed to Abraham placed him, even at that distance of time, in close personal relationship with the Saviour of mankind. No wonder that it was so evangelical in its terms, and brought the patriarch an experience of religion which anticipated the privileges of Christian faith. Gods covenant with Abraham, being in effect His covenant with mankind in Christ, stands both first and last. The Mosaic economy holds a second and subsidiary place in the scheme of Revelation.

The reason the Apostle gives for reading Christ into the promise is certainly peculiar. He has been taxed with false exegesis, with "rabbinical hair-splitting" and the like. Here, it is said, is a fine example of the art, familiar to theologians, of torturing out of a word a predetermined sense, foreign to its original meaning. "He doth not say, and to seeds, as referring to many; but as referring to one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Paul appears to infer from the fact that the word "seed" is grammatically singular, and not plural, that it designates a single individual, who can be no other than Christ. On the surface this does, admittedly, look like a verbal quibble. The word "seed," in Hebrew and Greek as in English, is not used, and could not in ordinary speech be used in the plural to denote a number of descendants. It is a collective singular. The plural applies only to different kinds of seed. The Apostle, we may presume, was quite as well aware of this as his critics, It does not need philological research or grammatical acumen to establish a distinction obvious to common sense. This piece of wordplay is in reality the vehicle of a historical argument, as unimpeachable as it is important. Abraham was taught, by a series of lessons, {Gen_12:2-3; Gen_15:2-6; Gen_17:4-8; Gen_17:15-21; Gen_22:16-18} to refer the promise to the single line of Isaac. Paul elsewhere lays great stress on this consideration; he brings Isaac into close analogy with Christ; for he was the child of faith, and represented in his birth a spiritual principle and the communication of a supernatural life. {Gal_4:21-31; Rom_4:17-22; comp Heb_11:11-12} The true seed of Abraham was in the first instance one, not many. In the primary realisation of the Promise, typical of its final accomplishment, it received a singular interpretation; it concentrated itself on the one, spiritual offspring, putting aside the many, natural and heterogeneous. (Hagarite or Keturite) descendants. And this sifting principle, this law of election which singles out from the varieties of nature the Divine type, comes into play all along the line of descent, as in the case of Jacob, and of David.

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

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

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

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

Paul is not alone in his insistence on the relation of Christ to Abraham. It is announced in the first sentence of the New Testament: "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of Abraham, son of David." And it is set forth with singular beauty in the Gospel of the Infancy. Marys song and Zacharias prophecy recall the freedom and simplicity of an inspiration long silenced, as they tell how "the Lord hath visited and redeemed His people; He hath shown mercy to our fathers, in remembrance of His holy covenant, the oath which He sware unto Abraham our father." And again, "He hath helped Israel His servant in remembrance of His mercy, as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever." {Luk_1:54-55; Luk_1:68-73} These pious and tender souls who watched over the cradle of our Lord and stood in the dawning of His new day, instinctively cast their thoughts back to the Covenant of Abraham. In it they found matter for their songs and a warrant for their hopes, such as no ritual ordinances could furnish. Their utterances breathe a spontaneity of faith, a vernal freshness of joy and hope to which the Jewish people for ages had been strangers. The dull constraint and stiffness, the harsh fanaticism of the Hebrew nature, have fallen from them. They have put on the beautiful garments of Zion, her ancient robes of praise. For the time of the Promise draws near. Abrahams Seed is now to be born; and Abrahams faith revives to meet Him. It breaks forth anew out of the dry and long-barren soil of Judaism; it is raised up to a richer and an enduring life. Pauls doctrine of Grace does but translate into logic the poetry of Marys and Zacharias anthems. The Testament of Abraham supplies their common theme.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

3:15-18 Christ, not the law, has fulfilled the promise and covenant given to Abraham.

3:15 An irrevocable agreement, such as a person’s last will and testament, is unalterable after the person has died, and it must be executed exactly as written.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_3:15.[132] Ἀδελφοι] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with reference to the instruction which follows. Comp. Rom_10:1. How entirely different was it in Gal_3:1! Now the tone of feeling is softened.

ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΛΈΓΩ] not to be placed in a parenthesis (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others), points to what followsto that which he is just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine διαθήκη. The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view; for the apostle does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks). Comp. ἀνθρωπείως and ἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝΩς (Dem. 639. 24, 1122. 2; Rom_6:19). See generally on Rom_3:5; 1Co_9:8; and van Hengel, Annot. p. 211 f.

ὅμως] yet. The logical position would be before οὐδείς. A ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ, although human, no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the ὅμως (which here intimates a conclusion à minori) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs in the case of Paul, 1Co_14:7. See on this passage. There is therefore all the less reason for writing it ὁμῶς, in like manner (Morus, Rosenmüller, Jatho), which would be unsuitable, since that which is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at Gal_3:17). Rückert (so also Olshausen and Windischmann) takes it in antithetical reference to κατὰ ἄνθρ. λέγω: I desire to keep only to human relations; nevertheless, etc. This would be an illogical antithesis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even (Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies), or quin imo (Wolf), and the like.

κεκυρωμένην] ratified, made legally valid, Gen_23:20; 4Ma_7:9; Dem. 485. 13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620 E; Polyb. v. 49. 6; Andoc. de myst. § 84, p. 11; comp. on 2Co_2:8.

διαθήκην] not testament (Heb_9:16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others, including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context; nor, in general, voluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann: destination as to anything, which we apply for ones benefit, Holsten, following earlier expositors); but in the solemn biblical signification of בְּרִית, covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others; also Ewald: contract), as in Gal_4:24 and all Pauline passages. The emphatic prefixing of ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ points to the majus, the διαθήκη of God; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him the promises (Gal_3:17. Comp. Gen_17:7; Exo_2:24; Lev_26:42; Luk_1:72; Act_3:25; 2Ma_1:2; Sir_44:20; Sir_44:22). The singular (ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ) is not opposed to this view; on the contrary, since ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ is put as analogue of the ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ of God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant, which a man has established. The ratification, as likewise follows from the ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ of God, is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third party; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclusion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another.

οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἣ ἐπιδιατ.] viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed. On ἈΘΕΤΕῖΝ ΔΙΑΘΉΚ., to do away a covenant, irritum facere, comp. 1Ma_15:27; 2Ma_13:25; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 8. 9. That οὐδείς is not the same subject as ἀνθρώπου (Holsten[133]), is evident both from the expression in itself, and from the application in Gal_3:17, where the ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ corresponds to the ἀνθρώπου and the (personified) νόμος, which comes in as a third person, to the οὐδείς.

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

Chrysostom aptly remarks: μὴ τολμᾶ τις ἀνατρέψαι μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὼν ἢ προσθεῖναι τι, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν· ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται.

[132] As to vv. 1522, see Hauck in Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abschn. d. Gal. Br. iii. 1522, Cassel, 1866. As to vv. 1529, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 1 ff.

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

Gal_3:15-18. What Paul has previously said concerning justification, not of the law, but of faith, with reference to that promise given to Abraham (Gal_3:8-14), could only maintain its ground as true before the worshippers of the law, in the event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once entered into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected to alteration through the entrance of the law. For if this covenant had been done away with or modified by the law, the whole proof previously adduced would come to nothing. Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been invalidated or altered through the Mosaic law.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15–18. The relation of the promise to the Law; the latter cannot hinder the former

“Having shown that faith is older than the Law, he teaches again that the Law cannot become a hindrance to the divine promises” (Theodoret).

(Gal 3:15) Brethren, I use human imagery—terms understood by all—and though they come short of the reality I say even a man’s disposition of his goods when confirmed no one else sets aside or adds to. (Gal 3:16) But (for I turn to higher things) to Abraham the many promises were solemnly spoken and to his seed. Yet notice how the very form of the word “seed” points to other than the individual descendants. It sums up all in one Person, even Christ. (Gal 3:17) I mean this by the figure of speech employed in Gal 3:15: a Disposition confirmed long since by God the Law that has come into existence 430 years afterwards cannot annul, so as to make the promise inoperative. (Gal 3:18) For (Law and Promise being incompatible) if the inheritance is from the Law it is no more of promise. But in fact to Abraham God has given the inheritance by promise, and the gift stands, a gift of God.

15. Ἀδελφοί. Gal 1:11 note. λάβωμεν (Gal 3:14) has suggested a common relationship to Christ.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (Gal 1:11) λέγω. Rom 3:5[99], which guides us to the right meaning here: I am applying human arguments as though I were speaking of the relation of man to man, although I am well aware that the reality deals with the relation of God to us. A less probable interpretation based on 1Co 9:8 is: I take an illustration from ordinary human life, in contrast to one taken from Scripture. So Chrysostom.

[99] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

ὅμως, “nevertheless,” i.e. although it seems indecorous to apply human arguments to God’s procedure—even a man’s διαθ. no one treats lightly. There is no sufficient reason for reading ὁμῶς “in like manner” here and 1Co 14:7 with Blass (Gram. § 77. 14).

ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην, “a man’s διαθ. when ratified,” 2Co 2:8[100]; Gen 23:20 (of the field and the cave to Abraham). Purposely nothing is said about the manner of ratification. All is as general as possible.

[100] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

διαθήκην. It is extremely difficult to determine the meaning of διαθήκη here and in Gal 3:17 and the image intended by St Paul.

(1) The Greek word that appears to us to be the most natural translation of “covenant” (i.e. a contract or agreement between two parties) is συνθήκη, which is common from Aeschylus downwards (see L. and S.). διαθήκη on the contrary seems never to mean a covenant in Classical Greek (see the criticism of Lightfoot by Ramsay, Gal. p. 362) or in the Greek of the Papyri and Inscriptions. Deissmann writes “I can affirm … that no one in the Levant of the first century A.D. could imagine that the word διαθήκη contained the meaning of ‘covenant’[101].” In these two vast collections of Greek it means a solemn enactment or Disposition of property etc. to take effect either in lifetime or after death.

[101] Ich kann auf Grund eines grossen Materials wohl sagen, dass kein Mensch in der Mittelmeerwelt des ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus auf den Gedanken kommen konnte, in dem Worte διαθήκη den Begriff Bund zu finden (Licht vom Osten, p. 243).

(2) Yet it is, as we may say, the only rendering of berith, “covenant,” in the LXX. For, if we take Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance as the basis, we find that berith is represented by διαθήκη 282 times, by συνθήκη only once, in 2Ki 17:15 A, and by ἐντολαί once in 1Ki 11:11. It is also transliterated three times. In Deu 9:15 the phrase “the two tables of the covenant” is rendered by αἱ δύο πλάκες τῶν μαρτυρίων in AF, but τ. μαρτ. is absent in B.

How are we to account for this use of διαθήκη by the LXX. in face of the evidence of the classics and the Inscriptions and Papyri? We notice that in Gen 6:18, the first occurrence of berith, it is used of God’s promise to Noah, and obviously therefore διαθήκη is a more suitable translation than συνθήκη. If this did not actually set the tone for the use of διαθήκη rather than συνθήκη (even in cases where berith means a covenant between man and man) throughout the O.T. (and we cannot suppose this in view of the multitude of translators) yet it fell in with what must have been the current note in the Graeco-Jewish mind of the time. Hence when used of God διαθήκη would retain much of its proper meaning, a solemn Disposition; the additional notion of acceptance, and so agreement by the receiving party, being wholly subordinate. So especially Jer 31:31, the new covenant of the Prophets. It may perhaps be added that it is also possible that the διά of the compounds διαθήκη and διατίθεμαι, though properly meaning thoroughness, may, by a popular etymology, have suggested to a Jew passing through the divided members of the animal connected with a covenant.

(3) The use of διαθήκη in the N.T.

(i) In no instance is it, or its verb διατίθεμαι, indisputably used of a mere contract between man and man. For this the verb συντίθεμαι is employed, Luk 22:5; Joh 9:22; Act 23:20, but the substantive συνθήκη does not occur, (ii) The quotations from the O.T., or the allusions to it, in every case refer to a Divine διαθήκη. (a) With Abraham and the Fathers, Luk 1:72; Act 3:25; Act 7:8; Rom 9:4 (plural); Eph 2:12 (plural), (b) In the time of Moses, Heb 8:9 (vide infra); Heb 9:4 bis, Heb 9:15 b (ἡ πρώτη διαθήκη), Heb 9:20 and apparently Rev 11:19. (c) The new covenant of the Prophets: Rom 11:27, taken from Isa 59:20-21; Heb 8:8-10 (from Jer 31:31 sqq.), Heb 10:16. To this perhaps may be added Heb 8:6 and Heb 9:15 a. (iii) The reference by our Lord at the Last Supper (Mar 14:24, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν || Mat 26:28; Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25) is to a διαθήκη by God in the O.T. sense, i.e. a Disposition by God, though the mention of blood seems to contain the connotation of acceptance by God’s people. (iv) The language of the writer of Heb 9:16-17 looks indeed at first sight as though the author used διαθήκη in the sense of “will” or “testament,” i.e. a Disposition to take effect only at death; but probably even there the thought of “the death of the testator “is connected with the death of Christ rather as “covenant-victim” than as testator properly so called (see Westcott in loco and especially p. 302). See also Heb 7:22, Heb 10:29, Heb 12:24, Heb 13:20.

(4) St Paul in the passages already cited and also in 2Co 3:6 (καιν. διαθ.) and 14 (τ. παλ. δ.), Eph 2:12, uses the word διαθήκη in the sense in which the translators of the LXX. used it with reference to God, and in which our Lord used it in the words recorded of Him, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that he used it in the same sense in our Epistle. But there is almost equally little doubt that the word “covenant” does not adequately express this sense. Some such word as “Disposition” is required if we are to bring out the supremacy and the grace connoted by διαθήκη. We may not translate “will” or “testament,” for these connote death, which διαθήκη does not necessarily do. It may, for example, include an adoption of a son during lifetime (see Ramsay, Gal. p. 351). Our “deed of gift” is perhaps the closest legal term representative of διαθήκη, cf. the quotation from Philo on p. 74. In Gal 3:15 St Paul is thinking of a “Disposition” by man generally; in Gal 3:17 he passes directly to the great “Disposition” made by God which governs all His dealings with Abraham and his descendants. In Gal 4:24 he has in his mind the two “Dispositions” by God, one made on Mount Sinai, the other made through Christ.

(5) Observe further:

(a) The subject is quite general. There is no reference either to the Roman or to the Greek law of wills, if even a difference of custom existed at this time. See Appendix, Note C. In particular observe that there is no reference to adoption in these verses.

It may even be questioned whether ἡ κληρονομία (Gal 3:18) is regarded as the result of the “Disposition”; for it is so very common a metaphor in the Old Testament.

(b) If in our verse the reference is quite general there is no occasion to ask how the question of death comes in. A “disposition” may or may not depend on the death of the testator. Thus in the reality of which the human “disposition” is a figure there is no room for objecting that God does not die, or for answering with Luther that the death of the Lord Jesus meets the difficulty. The question of death is simply not raised by St Paul, and the object of a commentary is to try and understand his thoughts, not to discuss what he never intended to suggest.

οὐδεὶς, i.e. no person other than the “disposer.” To understand it as meaning no person, no, not even the “disposer” himself, is to put an intolerable strain upon the passage. In our passage it excludes the νόμος of Gal 3:17, personifying it.

ἀθετεῖ, “sets aside,” Gal 2:21 note.

ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται[102], i.e. adds an additional clause, a codicil, or a later deed, an ἐπιδιαθήκη. Cf. Joseph. B.J. II. 2. 3 (§ 20) of Antipas ἀξιῶν τῆς ἐπιδιαθἠκης κυριωτέραυ εἶναι τὴν διαθήκην, and, for the contrary opinion of Archelaus and his advocate, 6 (§ 35). In Inscriptions found in Asia Minor διατάσσομαι is technically used of making testamentary dispositions (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 57). The statement is general, but as referring to God’s action it is implied that the Law is not an addition to the promise in the sense that it affects the latter.

[102] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He putteth forth two general [rules] before the next argument, which is the seventh in order: That one is, that it is not lawful to break covenants and contracts which are justly made and according to Law amongst men, neither may anything be added unto them: The other is, that God did so make a covenant with Abraham, that he would gather together his children which consist both of Jews and Gentiles into one body (as appeareth by that which hath been said before.) For he did not say, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his seeds, (which things notwithstanding should have been said, if he had many and divers seeds, as the Gentiles apart and the Jews apart,) but that he would be the God of Abraham, and of his seed, as of one.

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

Authentical, as we call it.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

I speak after the manner of men--I take an illustration from a merely human transaction of everyday occurrence.

but a man's covenant--whose purpose it is far less important to maintain.

if it be confirmed--when once it hath been ratified.

no man disannulleth--"none setteth aside," not even the author himself, much less any second party. None does so who acts in common equity. Much less would the righteous God do so. The law is here, by personification, regarded as a second person, distinct from, and subsequent to, the promise of God. The promise is everlasting, and more peculiarly belongs to God. The law is regarded as something extraneous, afterwards introduced, exceptional and temporary (Gal 3:17-19, Gal 3:21-24).

addeth--None addeth new conditions "making" the covenant "of none effect" (Gal 3:17). So legal Judaism could make no alteration in the fundamental relation between God and man, already established by the promises to Abraham; it could not add as a new condition the observance of the law, in which case the fulfilment of the promise would be attached to a condition impossible for man to perform. The "covenant" here is one of free grace, a promise afterwards carried into effect in the Gospel.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 15. I speak after the manner of men] I am about to produce an example taken from civil transactions. If it be confirmed-If an agreement or bond be signed, sealed, and witnessed, and, in this country, being first duly stamped;

No man disannulleth] It stands under the protection of the civil law, and nothing can be legally erased or added.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. I speak after the manner of men. 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. In demanding that the sacred covenant of God shall receive not less deference than is commonly yielded to ordinary human transactions, he does not place God on a level with men. The immense distance between God and men is still left for their consideration.

Though it be but a man’s covenant. This is an argument from the less to the greater. Human contracts are admitted on all hands to be binding: how much more what God has established? The Greek word διαθήκη, here used, signifies more frequently, what the Latin versions here render it, (testamentum,) a testament; but sometimes too, a covenant, though in this latter sense the plural number is more generally employed. It is of little importance to the present passage, whether you explain it covenant or testament. The case is different with the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle unquestionably alludes to testaments, (Hebrews 9:16, 17;) but here I prefer to take it simply for the covenant which God made. The analogy from which the apostle argues, would not apply so strictly to a testament as to a covenant. The apostle appears to reason from human bargains to that solemn covenant into which God entered with Abraham. If human bargains be so firm that they can receive no addition, how much more must this covenant remain inviolable?

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(15) I speak after the manner of men.—The figure that I am going to use is one taken from the ordinary civil relations between man and man, and therefore, it is left to be inferred, supplies an à fortiori argument in things relating to God, for men may change and break the most solemn engagements; God is absolutely faithful and unchangeable. The phrase translated “I speak after the manner of men” is found in the same, or a very similar form, in Rom_3:5; Rom_6:19; 1Co_9:8, where see the Notes.

Though it be but a man’s covenant.—This is well rendered in the Authorised version. A covenant, even though it is only between two men—though it is regulated by the provisions only of human law—does not admit of alteration or addition after it has once been signed and sealed; much more a covenant which depends on God.

Covenant.—The word thus translated is that which gave its name to the “Old and New Testaments,” where a more correct rendering would be the “Old and New Covenants.” The word has both senses. It meant originally a “disposition” or “settlement,” and hence came, on the one hand, to be confined to a “testamentary disposition,” while, on the other hand, it was taken to mean a settlement arrived at by agreement between two parties. The first sense is that most commonly found in classical writers; the second is used almost entirely in the LXX. and New Testament. The one exception is in Heb_9:15-17, where the idea of “covenant” glides into that of “testament,” the argument rather turning upon the double meaning of the word.

Addeth thereto.—Adds new clauses or conditions. Such new clauses could only be added by a second covenant. The reason why the Apostle introduces this point is that the Law might be supposed to restrict the bearings of the promise. It might be thought to add certain new and limiting conditions, without compliance with which the blessings of the promise could not be obtained. This was the position of the Judaising party, against which St. Paul is arguing.

(15-18) To take an illustration from purely human relations. A covenant once ratified is binding. It cannot be treated as if it did not exist, neither can fresh clauses be added to it. Now the covenant and promise made to Abraham (by the terms in which it was made) could point to no one but the Messiah. That covenant remained unaffected by the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years subsequent to it in point of date. Law and promise are two totally different and mutually exclusive things. But the covenant with Abraham was given by promise. The Law, therefore, had nothing to do with it.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. Brethren] Commentators note the softened tone of this address, as compared with the previous severity of rebuke. It is due to the influence on the Apostle’s mind of the thought expressed in Gal_3:14. Realising the share which the Gentiles enjoyed in Abraham’s blessing and in the promise of the Spirit, his heart is enlarged with tender compassion, and with that love which is the first-fruit of the Spirit (c. Gal_5:22).

after the manner of men] Lit. ‘according to man’, a familiar mode of expression with St Paul. Rom_3:5 (Rom_6:19); 1Co_3:3; 1Co_9:8; 1Co_15:32; Gal_1:11. The plur. ‘after the manner of men’, occurs 1Pe_4:6. In all these passages the sense is “according to an ordinary human standard, as men commonly judge, or speak, or act”.

though it be but a man’s covenant] The word here rendered ‘covenant’ is used in the Sept. and N. T. of any settlement, agreement, or contract between two parties; or of an engagement by which one party makes over certain privileges or property to another for his benefit. This may take effect during the lifetime of the party so covenanting, or after his death. In the latter case it has the sense of a will, or testament. [From the fact that the Vulgate translates it by testamentum, the word testament is used wrongly as its equivalent in A. V., Mat_25:28 and other passages, and also as the familiar title of the two portions of Holy Scripture.] In every passage of the N. T. (probably not excepting Heb_9:15-17, on which see Scholefield’s Hints, pp. 100–104) the word should be rendered ‘covenant’. The mention of ‘inheritance’ (Gal_3:18) does not affect this statement, for the heirs of this covenant do not succeed on the death of its Author.

if it be confirmed] In the general case, the confirmation of the agreement would be attended by certain formalities, such as the slaying of animals (see Scholefield’s Hints, referred to above), or, as in the particular instance, by an oath. Comp. Heb_6:16-17; Luk_1:73.

no man disannulleth … thereto] When once it has been formally ratified, no man cancels it, or supersedes it by making a new one.

addeth thereto] Of course fresh clauses may be added for the advantage of the beneficiary. But no new conditions may be introduced. The force of these words is more apparent as applied to the particular case, than as a general proposition. The condition of obedience as a ground of justification, introduced by the Law, is fatal to the covenant of free promise made to Abraham. We cannot believe that God would have acted in a manner from which men would shrink as inconsistent with rectitude

In this verse St Paul lays down a broad principle of justice, recognised by honourable men in their transactions with one another, and from it he deduces the special inference.

15–29. The Gospel a Covenant of Promise (15–18); to which the Law was at once subordinate and preparatory (Gal_3:19-29)

15–18. The Gospel a covenant of Promise

The Apostle proceeds to shew the certainty of the blessing, i.e. of justification, to all who believe. It is secured by the promise of God—a promise which is an unconditional covenant, and which is not affected by the conditional covenant (the Law), given long subsequently. Both were from God. But while the latter was of the nature of a contract between God and the people of Israel, and required a mediator and attesting witnesses, the latter is a transaction between God and Christ, who are One, announced to Abraham long before the Law was given, as a promise to him and to his seed.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Brethren,.... Whereas in Gal 3:1, he calls them "foolish Galatians", which might seem too harsh and severe, therefore, to mitigate and soften their resentments, he styles them brethren; hoping still well of them, and that they were not so far gone, but that they might be recovered; and imputing the blame and fault rather to their leaders and teachers, than to them:

I speak after the manner of men; agreeably to a Talmudic form of speech in use among the Jews, , "the law speaks according to the language of the children of men", or "after the manner of men" (b), when they argue from any Scripture, in which a word is repeated, and the latter word seems to point out something peculiar: but the apostle's meaning is, that the thing he was about to speak of was taken from among men, in common use with them, and what was obvious to the common sense and understanding of men, and might easily be applied and argued from, as it is by him:

though it be but a man's covenant, or testament, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto; if a covenant made between men, or a man's will and testament, be confirmed, signed, sealed, and witnessed, in a proper manner, no other man can make them void, or take anything from them, or add anything to them, only the parties concerned by their own will and consent; and if this be the case among men, much less can the covenant of God, confirmed by two immutable things, his word and oath, or his will and testament, or any branch of it, be ever disannulled, or be capable of receiving any addition thereunto. The apostle seems to have a particular respect to that branch of the covenant and will of God, which regards the justification of men in his sight by the righteousness of Christ, to which the false teachers were for adding the works of the law.

(b) T. Bab Ceritot, fol. 11. 1. Bava Metzia, fol. 94. 2. Sanhedrin, fol. 90. 2. Maccot, fol. 12. 1. Vid Halicot Olam, tract 4. c. 3. p. 199.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

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

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I speak after the manner of man; or, by a comparison, says St. John Chrysostom, common among men. If a man make or execute his last will, or any deed or contract, it stands good; no one contemns it, or pretends to annul it, or add any thing to it: how much more shall the testament, the covenant, or solemn promise which God made to Abraham, to bless all nations, stand firm and have its effect? And he said to his seed, to one, i.e. in Christ only, not to his seeds, as it were by many. It is observed, that the word seed being a collective signification, may grammatically be taken for the plural as well as for the singular number; so that we are to have more regard to St. Paul’s authority, who expounds to us what is here signified by the word see, that to the word itself. --- The law which was made after four hundred and thirty years (consult the chronologists) does not make void the testament: nor the promise which God himself made to Abraham, that mankind should be blessed only by Christ. These blessings could not be by the law of Moses ordained, or delivered by angels in the hand of a mediator, to wit, of Moses, according to the common interpretation, who, in receiving and publishing the law, was as it were a mediator betwixt God and his people. --- And a mediator is not of one, (but is called so, as mediating betwixt two parties) but God is one. This is to signify, that when he made the covenant or promise to Abraham, he made this promise himself, and did not make use of a mediator inferior to himself, as when he gave the law; and the law, in this respect, was inferior to the promise; but the chief difference was, that true justice and sanctification was not given by the law, for so it would have contradicted and have made void the promise made before to Moses [Abraham?], that the blessings of true sanctification should only be by his seed and by faith in Christ, the Son of Abraham and of David. According to the Scriptures all things (i.e. all men) were shut up together under sin, under the slavery of sin, from which they were not to be redeemed but by the accomplishment of the promise, and by the coming of Christ, by his grace, and faith in him. (Witham) --- Because of transgressions. To restrain them from sin, by fear and threats. --- Ordained by Angels. The law was delivered by Angels, speaking in the name and person of God to Moses, who was the mediator on this occasion between God and the people. (Challoner) --- The law was established not to occasion sin, but to manifest sin, and to punish sin. Ezechiel (xx. 11.) shews the meaning of the apostle, when he says: that God, after bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, imposed laws upon them that gave life to such as observed them. This was the decalogue, published immediately after the passage of the Red Sea; but violating these commandments, they became guilty of idolatry. To punish them, God imposed upon them precepts which are not good, and which give not life. (ver. 24, 25.) This is the ceremonial law, which was established and published by degrees during the forty years the Israelites sojourned in the desert. It is then evident that this law was given to punish transgressions in the Israelites, and to prevent relapses. This is the sense of St. Paul.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Though it be but a man’s covenant: the word here translated covenant, diayhkh, is ordinarily translated testament; see Mat 26:28. It signifies in the general, an ordering or disposing of things; more specially, a testament; which is the disposition of the testator’s goods after his death. Now, (saith the apostle), I here argue according to the ordinary methods and doings of men, who have such a respect for a man’s testament, as that,

if it be once confirmed, according to the methods of law and civil sanctions of men, or rather by the death of the testator (for a testament is of no force while the testator liveth, Heb 9:17); nor will men alter the will or last testament of a deceased person, though it be not as yet confirmed according to the methods of human laws.

No man disannulleth, or addeth thereto; no man, that is, no just man, will go about to disannul it, or add to it, nor will any just government endure any such violation of it. Hence the apostle argueth both the certainty and unalterableness for the covenant of grace with Abraham, and until the death of Christ it was but a covenant, or a testament not fully confirmed, but yet unalterable, because the covenant of that God who cannot lie, nor repent; but by the death of Christ it became a testament, and a testament ratified and confirmed by the death of the person that was the testator; therefore never to be disannulled, never capable of any additions. Those words, or addeth thereto, are fitly added, because these false teachers, though they might pretend not to disannul God’s covenant, holding still justification by Christ; yet they added thereto, making circumcision, and other legal observances, necessary to justification; whereas by God’s covenant, or testament, confirmed now by the death of Christ, faith in Christ only was necessary.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men (ajdelfoi katagw). "Brethren." The tone of indignant reproach with which the chapter opened has gradually subsided in the course of the apostle"s argument; so that here he appeals to the Galatian Churchmen as "brethren; "as if to bespeak their candid attention to the consideration he is about to allege. "I speak after the manner of men." I say it as stating a principle commonly recognized in human life, in respect to contracts between man and man (see note on the phrase,. (Gal_1:11) In a similar manner, Heb_6:16, 17 the writer refers to human methods of ratifying solemn engagements, in order to illustrate a course of proceeding on another occasion condescendingly adopted by God. Though it be but a man"s covenant, yet if it be (when it hath been) confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto (omwv ajnqrwpou kekurwmenhn diaqhkhn oujdeissetai). The Authorized Version has thus happily rendered the omwv, which is here transposed cut of its logical position, as it is also in ti 1Co_14:7, and as e is in Rom_5:6. The apostle"s meaning is that, if even men are constrained by their sense of justice to abide by this rule, much more may the All-righteous One be expected to do so. This a fortiori suggestion (for St. Paul only hints this consideration by introducing the word omwv without explicitly developing it) is similar to the afortiori argument more explicitly stated by our Lord with reference to God"s justice, in Luk_18:6, Luk_18:7; and to his fatherliness, in kh Luk_11:13. "Covenant." The word diaqh properly "disposition," which, in classical Greek, generally means "will," "testament," is used in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew berith, covenant, in which sense it occurs once in Aristophanes, "Ayes," 439; and it appears to denote "covenant" in all the thirty-three places in which it is found in the New Testament; for evenkh Heb_9:17 can hardly be allowed to be an exception. Bishop Lightfoot observes that the Septuagint translators and the New Testament writers probably preferred diaqh) to sunqhkh, the ordinary Greek word for "covenant," when speaking of a Divine dispensation, because, like "promise," it better expresses the free grace of God. Perhaps the terms appeared to them more suitable also in this application, because one of the parties to the engagement was no other than the supreme sovereign Disposer of all things. "Confirmed;" ratified; as it were, signed, sealed, and delivered. "No one;" meaning neither of the two covenanting parties. "Addeth thereto;" addeth any fresh condition, such as would clog the action of the previous engagement. The apostle adds this with reference to the supposition that the Law of Moses might have qualified the Abrahamic covenant by limiting its benefits to persons ceremonially clean.

A new line of argument the relation between the covenant and the Law.

Up to this point the apostle has touched upon no point that we have not seen in the Epistle to the Romans. Now he breaks new ground. "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.

I IT IS ALLOWABLE TO USE HUMAN ANALOGIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF DIVINE TRUTH. The phrase, "after the manner of men," has various significations in the apostle"s writings, but he evidently means here that the human analogy is perfectly appropriate, and that that which is true of a mere human arrangement is a fortiori of an arrangement made by God.

II THE CONDITIONS OF COVENANT-MAKING IN HUMAN LIFE,

1. A covenant is an arrangement between two parties for mutual benefit, with an implied character of permanence. It is designed to perpetuate a relation of some sort.

2. The covenant stands in the integrity of all its provisions without either party having the power to annul it or to add fresh clauses, whether consistent or inconsistent with its provisions.

III IMPLICATION THAT WHAT IS TRUE OF A HUMAN COVENANT IS ESSENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE IDEA OF A DIVINE COVENANT. It is irreversible and irrevocable, since it is a covenant established by oath. God swears and he will not repent. The Judaistic theory, however, under the form of a supplement, would really effect the entire abrogation of the covenant.

Vers. 15-22.

The covenant of promise.

Having taken up the case of Abraham as illustrating the necessity of faith, Paul proceeds to state the Abrahamic covenant as one of promise. The Mosaic covenant, promulgated four hundred and thirty years after, could not, he argues, disannul the previous covenant. It must have a supplementary purpose; and this he shows to be to drive the souls who have been made hopeless by the Law into the arms of the "faithful Promiser." The following lessons are suggested:

I THE COVENANT OF PROMISE MADE WITH CHRIST AS SEED OF ABRAHAM. (Vers. 15, 16.) We are too prone to contemplate the promises of God out of their relation to Christ. No wonder that they then seem incredible. They are too good news to be true. But the exceeding great and precious promises are all yea and amen in Christ; (2Co_1:20) they are promises made to Christ and secured by his obedience; and consequently they ought not to seem at any time incredible. Now, when God spoke to Abraham of a universal blessing being given through the patriarch"s "Seed," it never suggested to Abraham any idea of merit upon his part. He simply hoped upon God"s word, which would be fulfilled in due season. The Seed would convey the blessing. The old man"s hope rested upon his Seed, the Christ whom the ages would reveal. The Seed might be meritorious, but Abraham felt that he himself was not. In the humility of felt helplessness, therefore, he trusted God, and found pardon and acceptance and inspiration through his trust. It is just here we must all begin. The Lord Jesus deserves the fulfilment of all the promises. The covenant of grace made with him by the Father has received a fulfilment of its conditions so far as he was concerned; and so he can claim the promises as no more than his due. Their guarantee is in his obedience unto death.

II THE SINAITIC LAW COULD NOT DISANNUL THE COVENANT OF PROMISE. (Vers. 17, 18.) Four hundred and thirty years elapsed and, lo, another covenant is made with the seed of Abraham. At Sinai, and through the mediation of Moses and of angels, a "fiery Law" went forth from Heaven, and the question Paul answers here is what effect this latter covenant had upon the former. He adduces the fact that legal documents when once perfected are not disannulled by subsequent ones. The later documents must proceed upon the validity and power of the preceding. Hence the Mosaic Law could not render the Abrahamic covenant of promise null and void. It must consist with and supplement the preceding. The promise made to the seed of Abraham remained in force, notwithstanding the thunders of Mount Sinai. Nay, the thunders of Sinai were, as we shall next see, to incline the people to accept the previous promise. There was no antithesis between promise and Law; but Law came to incline the people to embrace the promise. There was something more venerable and more sacred even than the covenant at Sinai, and this was the promises made to Abraham in Canaan. These were the well-head of Jewish privileges. The Jews had not been called to law-keeping and self-righteousness, but to promises exceeding great and precious to be won by their Messiah. It was to faith, not to ceremony, that their system really summoned them.

III THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW. (Vers. 19-22.) Was the Sinaitic covenant, then, a work of supererogation? By no means. It was a grand instrument, when rightly regarded, to drive sinners into a Saviour"s arms. What did it require? Perfect obedience. Did the people at Mount Sinai fancy they could render it? Nay; the utterance of the ten commandments in the great and terrible tones convinced them that they could not stand up in their own strength before such a holy God. Hence their flight from the. (Exo_20:18) Hence their cry for the mediation of Moses (ver. 19). In a word, the effect of the publication of the Law was to overwhelm the people with a sense of their sin. This is the purpose of the Law. It is not to feed man"s hope of claiming life by law-keeping; it is, on the contrary, to kill that hope and send him to God"s free grace that he may be saved by faith in the promises. The Law is to secure our despair of self that we may build all our hope on the Saviour. What, then, were the ceremonies of Judaism? They were embodiments of the promises. The Judaizers said," We are to be saved by observing these ceremonies;" but the truth was that the ceremonies were enacted to make the promises emphatic and to lead sinners away from self-righteousness to God and his mercy. The ceremonial Law was a pictorial gospel, to keep up the hearts of those whom the moral Law had reduced to despair; but the false teachers made the ceremonies saving, and so ignored the gospel they embodied. May we be kept from all analogous mistakes! R.M.E.

Vers. 15-22.

Promise and Law.

From this point the apostle has a softened tone toward the Galatians. He deals with them now more in the way of instruction and counsel than of correction and rebuke.

I THE PROMISE WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY THE LAW.

1. Human analogy. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man"s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto." When the apostle professes to speak after the manner of men, he is not thinking of himself as having to come down from the spiritual standpoint, but of God as greater than man, and of his having to use a certain freedom in arguing as he does from a man"s covenant to God"s covenant. We are not to understand "covenant" in the sense of" testament." It is an engagement under which one comes to another with or without engagement on the part of that other. To be thoroughly valid a covenant must be confirmed. Testimony must be given that an engagement has been really and fully entered into. The signing of a legal document is a common mode of confirmation. We read frequently in old times of confirmation by oath. When a covenant has been confirmed, no one maketh it void or addeth thereto. Meyer says, "no third party;" but the language is applicable even to the person who comes under engagement. He is not free to set his engagement aside or to modify it by additions. It is different from the case of a testator while he is still living. In signing a will he has come under no engagement to any one, and is free to cancel it or to add a codicil. But when an engagement has been entered into it can neither be set aside nor modified by additions, but stands to be carried out to the letter.

2. Two points to be taken into account in applying the analogy.

(1) The covenant with Abraham was of the nature of a promise. "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken." This brings down the general idea of covenant to a special kind. Promise is not a contracting for benefit and with conditions. In its purest form, as employed by the apostle, it is an engagement to bestow blessing, without conditions attached. It is here used in the plural number, not because distinct blessings were promised, but because the same blessing was repeatedly promised, with variety of form and circumstance.

(2) The covenant of promise was made, not only with Abraham, but included Christ. "And to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." With resemblance in form to the rabbinical style of argument, this cannot be said to have anything of rabbinical feebleness. The point is, that the idea of plurality might have been brought out in the form given to the promise. It might have been said, "And to thy descendants," thus excluding reference to one in particular. Instead of that it was said, "And to thy seed," which is applicable, though not necessarily limited in application, to one. The apostle, having pointed this out, declares (does not argue) that there was an intended application to Christ. As he was the Seed of the woman, so also was he the Seed of Abraham. The, bearing of the declaration is, that, Christ having been included in the promise, it had to be made good to him as well as to Abraham.

3. Application of the analogy.

(1) Position. "Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect." So far as God was concerned, the promise had full validity as soon as it was announced. (Gen_13:15) So far as Abraham was concerned, it was confirmed by the fire passing between the pieces of the sacrifice, (Gen_15:17) and by oath, (Gen_22:18) and also by repetition. (Gen_17:8) It was also confirmed to the other patriarchs. (Gen_26:4 Gen_28:4) That being the case, it could not be set aside by the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years later. If it had been a covenant with conditions, then it might have been inferred that, the conditions not having been complied with, the Law had been introduced. Thus the Law would virtually have displaced the covenant. But the apostle"s position is that the covenant, being of the nature of promise, there could be no displacing of it by the Law. "So as to make the promise of none effect" comes in as qualifying the assertion. Whatever covenant the Law might have displaced, it could never displace a covenant of pure promise.

(2) Argument by which it is supported. "For if the inheritance is of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise." The blessing is described as the inheritance, which had a reference beyond the land of Canaan to the heavenly Canaan, and even to the whole earth, which is now to be regarded as the earthly Canaan. If the inheritance was associated with the Law, then it must never have been promised. For promise, according to the apostle"s understanding of it, is engagement to bless without conditions. But the inheritance never could be associated with the Law. For it was authenticated that God freey-promised it to Abraham. By this promise, then, to speak after the manner of men, God was bound. He was not in the position of a testator who could cancel or add fresh clauses. Nor was he in the position of one who had made a covenant with conditions which had not been complied with. But having given an unconditional promise, he could not under any circumstances withdraw it.

II FOUR POINTS IN WHICH THE LAW DIFFERED FROM THE PROMISE. "What then is the Law?

1. It was additional to the promise. "It was added because of transgressions." It was never intended to stand alone. It was simply intended to be an adjunct to the promise already given and still continuing in force. "It was added because of transgressions." There is not yet brought into view the purpose which the Law served with reference to transgressions, checking them, making them clear. It is simply indicated that the introduction of the Law was necessitated by the disposition to transgress. There is the same teaching here as by our Lord with regard to the law of divorce. It was not, he said, so from the beginning; but was necessitated by the hardness of men"s hearts. So, with regard to the Law and its rigour, it was not so from the beginning. God began with promise; and it was only when it was not sufficiently responded to that the Law was introduced, not as a substitute, but as an addition to the promise.

2. It was a temporary addition. "Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made." As it was an after institution, so it was never intended to last. It had not the permanence which belonged to the promise. It had reference to the coming of the Seed to whom the promise had been made. That was the great reason of its existence. There is not yet brought into view the purpose which the Law served with reference to the coming Seed. It is simply indicated that it was so related to Christ that, when he came to receive the promise, it was necessarily done away as an institution.

3. It was given mediately by God. "And it was ordained through angels." The connection of the angels with the giving of the Law was prominent in Jewish tradition. It is remarkable that there is no mention of them in the historical account in Exodus. They are thus introduced in 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 thousand of his saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them." The ten thousand of his holy ones were doubtless angels. So in Psa_68:17 it is said, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the holy place." This fact was so recognized among the Jews that Stephen could tell them that they had received the Law by the disposition of angels. Their connection with it was not confined to accompanying the Lord, or ordering the miraculous accompaniment. But the language in Hebrews word spoken by angels taken along with the language here, points to them as the instruments employed by God in delivering the Law. This circumstance is introduced by the apostle here, in keeping with the context, not to glorify the Law, but to show that God stood at a distance from men in the giving of the Law. It was something which was in a manner foreign to him. Therefore, in giving it he did not come immediately into contact with men, but interposed angels on his side.

4. It was mediately received by men. "By the hand of a mediator." This was Moses. "I stood between the Lord and you." In the giving of the Law great stress was laid on the fact that the people were not fit to draw near to God to receive it from him. Therefore a mediator was interposed on man"s side. Added comment on double mediation. "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one." It is said that there have been as many as four hundred and thirty different interpretations of these words. If that speaks to extraordinary labour bestowed on the interpretation of the words, it also speaks to extraordinary misdirection of labour. It can be said that new there is substantial unanimity of interpretation. The first statement does not refer to Moses nor to Christ, but to a mediator generally; and means that a mediator implies two parties, between whom the mediation takes place. The second statement, that God is one, has often been taken to mean that God is one of the two parties, the children of Israel being the other party, which is pointless for the purpose of the argument. It means that God is mediatorless in the promise. In the Law, God kept at a distance, interposing mediators on his side and interposing also a mediator on man"s side. But in the promise God came immediately into contact with Abraham, employing no mediator, but speaking to him as to a friend.

III THE LAW WAS NOT ANTAGONISTIC TO THE PROMISE. "IS the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid." In keeping with what has been said, God identifies himself with the promises, and not with the Law. They were not, however, antagonistic.

1. The Law did not supply the condition of the blessing. "For if there had been a Law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the Law." In the case supposed (righteousness being of the Law, and so making alive), the Law would have been antagonistic to the promise. There would have been an antagonistic mode of justification. The blessing would have been put on the ground of obedience to the Law. The apostle repudiates that supposition, without any disparagement of the Mosaic Law. It had a perfectness of its own. If there had been a Law fitted to give life, he strongly asserts that would have been the Mosaic Law. It was raised above all mere human law. It presented an admirable idea of righteousness. That it did not actually effect righteousness was simply because that was impossible.

2. The Scripture represented men as all shut up to the obtaining of the blessing simply by faith. "Howbeit the Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." Scripture is not the Law, but rather that which holds Law and promise in harmony. The office ascribed to Scripture is peculiar. It has placed, not only all men but all things (man"s surroundings) under sin as gaoler. In this imprisonment there was not finality. On the contrary, it was with the view of magnifying the promise. Not by doing the Law, but by believing the promise, is the blessing attained. As the promise was made good to Jesus Christ, and was thus identified with him, faith in him, as obtaining the blessing for us, has become the simple and all-sufficient principle of the religious life. R.F.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I speak after the manner of men - I illustrate this by a familiar instance, taken from the practice of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be once legally confirmed, none - No, not the covenanter himself, unless something unforeseen occur, which cannot be the case with God. Disannulleth, or addeth thereto - Any new conditions.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 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.

After the preceding, well-taken argument, Paul offers another based on the similarity between a man’s testament and God’s testament. A man’s testament seems too weak a premise for the Apostle to argue from in confirmation of so important a matter as justification. We ought to prove earthly things by heavenly things, and not heavenly things by earthly things. But where the earthly thing is an ordinance of God we may use it to prove divine matters. In Mat 7:11 Christ Himself argued from earthly to heavenly things when He said: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children; how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

To come to Paul’s argument. Civil law, which is God’s ordinance, prohibits tampering with any testament of man. Any person’s last will and testament must be respected. Paul asks: "Why is it that man’s last will is scrupulously respected and not God’s testament? You would not think of breaking faith with a man’s testament. Why do you not keep faith with God’s testament?"

The Apostle says that he is speaking after the manner of men. He means to say: "I will give you an illustration from the customs of men. If a man’s last will is respected. and it is, how much more ought the testament of God be honored: ’In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.’ When Christ died, this testament was sealed by His blood. After His death the testament was opened, it was published to the nations. No man ought to alter God’s testament as the false apostles do who substitute the Law and traditions of men for the testament of God."

As the false prophets tampered with God’s testament in the days of Paul, so many do in our day. They will observe human laws punctiliously, but the laws of God they transgress without the flicker of an eyelid. But the time will come when they will find out that it is no joke to pervert the testament of God.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15–18. I speak after the manner of men. I will make a comparison with human affairs. Though it be but a man's covenant, etc. A covenant, or agreement, among men, after it is ratified, cannot be annulled or altered without the consent of both parties.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Brothers

See how you translated this in Galatians 1:2.

in human terms

"as a person" or "of things most people understand"

Now

This word shows that Paul has stated a general principle and is now beginning to introduce a specific case.

referring to many

"referring to many descendants"

to your descendant

The word "your" is singular and refers to a specific person, who is a particular descendant of Abraham (and that descendant is identified as "Christ"). (See: Forms of You)

translationWords

brother

covenant

promise

Abraham

descend

Christ

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

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

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

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

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. “Brethren, I speak from the point of view of men.” On the use of ἀδελφοί, see on 1:2. Its use here is probably due to the apostle’s feeling that he is now addressing the Galatians more directly than in the preceding paragraph, in which he was really speaking to the judaisers whose argument he was refuting, and to his desire to secure their friendly attention. On κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, see on 1:11. The regular meaning of the phrase after a verb is, “as men do,” the specific point of resemblance being indicated in the context. Here this general meaning naturally becomes, “I speak as men do about their affairs” (cf. 1Co 9:8), i. e., “I draw an illustration from common human practice.” A reference to human authority such as is suggested in 1Co 9:8 is improbable here, both because there is no suggestion of it in the context and because the depreciation of the value of the argument which such a reference would imply is uncalled for and without value for the apostle’s purpose.

ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. “Though it be man’s, yet a covenant once established no one annuls or adds to.” Of the force of ὅμως two views are possible: (1) It may mark an antithesis between κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω and what follows. In this case, since ἀνθρώπου, etc., is not directly adversative to κατὰ … λέγω, the second member of the antithesis must be supposed to be suggested by, rather than expressed in, the words that follow; most probably by the whole argument of vv. 15b, 17. The thought will then be, “Though I speak from the point of view of men’s affairs, yet what may be so said is not without force: a man’s ratified covenant,” etc. (So substantially Rück.. Olsh., cited by Wies.) (2) The antithesis may be between ἀνθρώπου and what follows. This involves a trajection by which ὅμως stands not in its natural place before the second member of the antithesis, but before the first. Cf. 1Co 14:7: ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα … ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ … where ὅμως indicates an antithesis between ἄψυχα and φωνὴν διδόντα, or more probably between φωνὴν διδόντα and ἐὰν διαστολὴν … μὴ δῷ. With this passage have been compared also Plat. Phaed. 91C (φοβεῖται μὴ ἡ ψυχὴ ὅμως καὶ θειότερον καὶ κάλλιον ὂν τοῦ σώματος προαπολλύηται ἐν ἁρμονίας εἴδει οὖσα), Thuc. 7.77:3, and Xen. Cyr. 5. 1:26 (νῦν δʼ αὖ οὕτως ἔχομεν ὡς σὺν μὲν σοὶ ὅμως καὶ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ ὄντες θαρροῦμεν). Cf. WM. p. 693, Kühner-Gerth, II 2, p. 85. In this case the contrast is between the διαθήκη as man-made and its irrevocability after its ratification. The first view has the advantage of grammatical simplicity. But in view of the instances of trajection, including the only other instance of ὅμως in Paul, and of the greater logical simplicity of the second view, it is probably to be preferred. κεκυρωμένην, characterising the supposed covenant as having been executed and hence actually in force, expresses a thought which is implied in διαθήκην, but adds to the clearness of the sentence. It clearly belongs to the second element of the antithesis, with οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ. The validation of the covenant is evidently in the apostle’s mind not, like ἀνθρώπου, a fact in spite of which no one annuls it or adds to it, but the ground of the irrevocability, as is implied in the re-expression of the idea in the word προκεκυρωμένην in v. 17. By διαθήκη must be understood not “testament” (as Th. Cremer, Sief. Ram. Zahn, ERV.mg. Behm, Lohmeyer, et al.) nor “stipulation,” “arrangement,” in a sense broad enough to cover both will and covenant (Hauck in Th. St. u. Kr., 1862, pp. 514 ff., Segond, and Bous.), but as the usage of N. T. in general and of Paul in particular and the context here require, “covenant” in the sense of the O. T. בֵּרית (so Mey. Alf. Ell. Ltft. ERV.text, ARV. Beet). Cf. on v. 17, and for fuller statement of the evidence, see detached note on Διαθήκη, pp. 496 ff.

Ἀνθρώπου. The singular number of this noun furnishes no argument against the meaning “covenant” (a) because, as will appear below, the covenant as conceived of in Hebrew thought, though constituting a relation between two persons often proceeds from one, and (b) because the noun is here most naturally understood as qualitative as in the phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. Cf. 1:1 διʼ ἀνθρώπου and other examples given there.

Κεκυρωμένην from κυρόω, cognate with κύριος (cf. the adjectival use in 1 Mac. 8:30 in the sense “established”) means “validated,” “effected,” “executed,” referring neither to the drafting of an agreement or will preceding its execution nor to a confirmation which follows the actual execution (the latter sense though occurring is infrequent; see Æsch. Pers. 521, and 4 Mac. 7:9; Plut. Orat. vit. Lys.), but to the execution itself, that without which it would not be in force at all. The prefixing of the participle to διαθήκην, therefore, simply emphasises what is implied in the word itself, pointing out that what is referred to is a διαθήκη actually in force, not simply under consideration or written out but not yet agreed to and therefore still subject to modification. Cf. Thuc. 8. 6:9: ἡ ἐκκλησία … κυρώσασα ταῦτα διελύθη. Polyb. 1. 11:1: καὶ τὸ μὲν συνέδριον οὐδʼ εἰς τέλος ἐκύρωσε τὴν γνωμήν … Boeckh, C. I. G. 1570 a. 45. τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ κυρωθέν. Gen 23:20: καὶ ἐκυρώθη ὁ ἀγρὸς … τῷ Ἀβραὰμ εἰς κτῆσιν τάφου παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Χέτ. (Aq. uses the same word in v. 17). Dan 6:9 (Lxx): καὶ οὕτως ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαρεῖος ἔστησε καὶ ἐκύρωσεν. Plut. Alcib. 33:1: τὸ μὲν οὖν ψήφισμα τῆς καθόδου πρότερον ἐκεκύρωτο. See also Plut. Sol. 30:5; Peric. 32:3; Pomp. 48:3.

οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται is to be taken without qualification, least of all with the qualification, “except the contractor” (so Schm., Encyc. Bib. II 1611; cf. Zahn, Bous. ad loc.). That a compact may be modified by common consent of both the parties to it is, of course, not denied, but simply assumed and ignored. But to assume that either party alone is excepted is to deprive the statement of all meaning. For evidence that this assertion itself shows that the διαθήκη ἀνθρώπου, which Paul uses, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, to prove the unchangeableness of the διαθήκη of God is a covenant, not a will, see detached note on Διαθήκη, pp. 496 ff.

Ἀθετέω, “to render ἄθετος” ( = without place or standing, invalid), occurs from Lxx and Polybius down, signifying in respect to laws and the like “to disregard,” “to violate” (Polyb. 8. 2:5; Mar 7:9, Heb 10:28), or “to annul,” “to abrogate” (1 Mac. 11:36, 2 Mac. 13:25); of persons “to set at nought,” “to reject,” “to rebel against” (Deu 21:14, Isa 1:2). Cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v. “To annul” is clearly the meaning here.

Ἐπιδιατάσσεται furnishes the only extant instance of this word, but διατάσσω is frequent both in Greek writers and N. T. in the sense “to arrange,” “to prescribe”; the middle occurring in Plut. in the sense “to make a will,” “to order by will.” The compound ἐπιδιατάσσω evidently signifies “to make additional prescriptions” (cf. ἐπιδιατίθημι, Dio Cass. 62:15 and ἐπιδιαθήκη, “codicil,” Jos. Ant. 17. 226 (9:4) and examples cited by Norton, A Lexicographical and Historical Study of Διαθήκη … Chicago, 1908). Whether such prescriptions are contrary to the original compact (they of course modify it or they would not be added) is beside the mark; a compact once executed can not be changed.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

After the manner of men [κατα ανθρωπον] . According to human analogy; reasoning as men would reason in ordinary affairs. The phrase is peculiar to Paul. See Rom 3:5; 1Co 3:3; 1Co 9:8; 1Co 14:32; Gal 1:11. Comp. ajnqrwpinov as a man, Rom 6:19.

Though it be - yet. The A. V. and Rev. give the correct sense, but the order of the Greek is peculiar. %Omwv yet properly belongs to ouJudeiv no man : "Though a man's covenant yet no man disannulleth it." But omwv is taken out of its natural place, and put at the beginning of the clause, before ajnqrwpou, so that the Greek literally reads : "Yet a man's covenant confirmed no one disannulleth, etc." A similar displacement occurs 1Co 14:7.

Covenant [διαθηκην] . Not testament. See on Mt 26:28, and Heb 9:16.

Confirmed [κεκυρωμενην] . P o. See 2Co 2:8. In LXX, Gen 23:20; Lev 25:30; 4 Macc. 7 9. From kurov supreme power. Hence the verb carries the sense of authoritative confirmation, in this case by the contracting parties.

Disannulleth [αθετει] . See on bring to nothing, 1Co 1:19. Rev. maketh void.

Addeth thereto [επιδιατασσεται] . N. T. o. Adds new specifications or conditions to the original covenant, which is contrary to law. Comp. ejpidiaqhkh a second will or codicil, Joseph B. J. 2 2, 3; Ant 17:9, 4. The doctrine of the Judaisers, while virtually annulling the promise, was apparently only the imposing of new conditions. In either case it was a violation of the covenant.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.