Galatians 3:17

Gal_3:17

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul.

Gods covenants with men

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

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

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

3. The Sinaitic Covenant was

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

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

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

The Abrahamic covenant

I. The Abrahamic covenant viewed in itself (Gen_13:15; Gen_17:7). The prominent feature in it is grace, and it clearly looks forward to Christ. Its chief blessings are--

(1) Divine forgiveness;

(2) Divine reward;

(3) Divine adoption;

(4) Divine illumination.

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

The everlasting covenant

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

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

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

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

The supremacy of faith

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

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

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

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

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

The immutability of the covenant

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

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

2. The Christian covenant is independent of time.

(1) No time was specified.

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

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

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

1. During the four hundred and thirty years.

(1) The obliquities of Jacob.

(2) The evil conduct of his sons.

(3) The religious apathy of the Egyptian sojourn.

(4) The perversities of the wilderness wandering.

2. During the following years till the advent.

(1) In spite of Divine revelation.

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

III. The intermediary dispensation did not disannul it.

1. The law itself did not.

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

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

2. The infraction of the law did not.

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

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

III. It rests on the immutability of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The covenant in Christ

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

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

III. Its Immutability--confirmed to (Gal_3:16) and in Christ--cannot be disannulled. (J. Lyth.)

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

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

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

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

3:17 Just as irrevocable agreements cannot be canceled (3:15), the terms of God’s covenant with Abraham were not changed by the giving of the law. • 430 years: See study note on Exod 12:40.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gal_3:17. Result of Gal_3:15-16, emphatically introduced by τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, but this which follows (see on 1Co_1:12) I say as the conclusion drawn from what is adduced in Gal_3:15-16 : A covenant which has been previously made valid (ratified) by God, the law … does not annul. What covenant is here intended, is well known from the connection, namely, the covenant made by God with Abraham, through His giving to him, and to his σπέρμα included along with him, the promises in Gen_12:3; Gen_18:18 (Gen_3:8), Gen_13:15, Gen_17:8 (Gen_3:16). The κύρωσις (comp. on Gal_3:15) is not any separate act following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in the very promises given: through them the covenant became valid. The προ in προκεκυρ. is correlative with the subsequent μετα, and therefore signifies: previously, ere the law existed.

ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια κ.τ.λ.] cannot be intended to denote a comparatively short time (Koppe), which is not suggested by the context; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence so long a time after, cannot render invalid a covenant, which had been validly instituted so long previously by God and consequently had already subsisted so long. Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem, Bengel. According to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is intended to imply that the law was something new and different, which could not he held as an element forming part of the promise. But this was obvious of itself from the contrast between promise and law occupying the whole context, and, moreover, would not be dependent on a longer or shorter interval. With regard to the number 430, Paul gets it from Exo_12:40 (in Gen_15:13 and Act_7:6 the round number 400 is used); but in adopting it he does not take into account that this number specifies merely the duration of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Consequently the number here, taken by itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy; but Paul follows the statement of the LXX., which differs from the original textthe text of the LXX. being well known to and current among his readerswithout entering further into this point of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Exo_12:40 the LXX. has ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσρ. ἣν κατῷκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγ. καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν (the words κ. ἐ. γ. Χ. are wanting in the Hebrew), ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα. This text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckoning of the timea reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and in Joseph. Antt. ii. 15. 3. See Tychsen, Exc. X. p. 148. The interval between Gods promise to Abraham and the migration of Jacob to Egyptan interval omitted in the 430 yearscannot indeed be exactly determined, but may be reckoned at about 200 years; so that, if Paul had wished to give on his own part a definition of the time, he would not have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 430. The attempts to bring the 430 years in our passage into agreement with the 430 years in Exo_12:40 are frustrated by the unequivocal tenor of both passages.[138]

γεγονώς] is not said ad postponendam legem, (see, on the contrary, Joh_1:17), as Bengel thinks (non dicit data, quasi lex fuisset, antequam data sit); for every law only comes into existence as law with the act of legislation.

On ἀκυροῖ, invalidates, overthrows, comp. Mat_15:6; Mar_7:13; 3 Esr. 6:32; Diod. Sic. xvi. 24; Dion. H. vi. 78; and ἄκυρον ποιεῖν, in more frequent use among Greek authors.

εἰς τὸ καταργ. τὴν ἐπαγγ.] Aim of the ἀκυροῖ: in order to do away the promise (by which the διαθήκη was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid of result. Comp. Rom_4:14. Redditur autem inanis, si vis conferendae haereditatis ab ea ad legem transfertur, Bengel. Observe once more the personification of the law.

[138] E.g. Grotius: The time in Exo_12:40 is reckoned from Abrahams journey to Egypt. Perizonius, Orig. Aeg. 20; and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 736 The 430 years do not begin until after the period of the promises, that is, after the time of the patriarchs, and of Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp. 162: The terminus a quo is the birth of Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In like manner Hofmann: The terminus a quo is the time at which the promise given to Abraham was at all repeated; also Hauck: From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine σπέρμα Ἀβρ. reached.

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

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

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

The eighth argument taken of comparison, thus: If a man’s covenant (being authentical) be firm and strong, much more God’s covenant. Therefore the Law was not given to abrogate the promise made to Abraham, which had respect to Christ, that is to say, the end whereof did hang of Christ.

Which tendeth to Christ.

An enlarging of that argument, thus: Moreover and besides that the promise is of itself firm and strong, it was also confirmed with the prescription of long time, to wit, of 430 years, so that it could in no wise be broken.

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

this I say--"this is what I mean," by what I said in Gal 3:15.

continued . . . of God--"ratified by God" (Gal 3:15).

in Christ--rather, "unto Christ" (compare Gal 3:16). However, Vulgate and the old Italian versions translate as English Version. But the oldest manuscripts omit the words altogether.

the law which was--Greek, "which came into existence four hundred thirty years after" (Exo 12:40-41). He does not, as in the case of "the covenant," add "enacted by God" (Joh 1:17). The dispensation of "the promise" began with the call of Abraham from Ur into Canaan, and ended on the last night of his grandson Jacob's sojourn in Canaan, the land of promise. The dispensation of the law, which engenders bondage, was beginning to draw on from the time of his entrance into Egypt, the land of bondage. It was to Christ in him, as in his grandfather Abraham, and his father Isaac, not to him or them as persons, the promise was spoken. On the day following the last repetition of the promise orally (Gen 46:1-6), at Beer-sheba, Israel passed into Egypt. It is from the end, not from the beginning of the dispensation of promise, that the interval of four hundred thirty years between it and the law is to be counted. At Beer-sheba, after the covenant with Abimelech, Abraham called on the everlasting God, and the well was confirmed to him and his seed as an everlasting possession. Here God appeared to Isaac. Here Jacob received the promise of the blessing, for which God had called Abraham out of Ur, repeated for the last time, on the last night of his sojourn in the land of promise.

cannot--Greek, "doth not disannul."

make . . . of none effect--The promise would become so, if the power of conferring the inheritance be transferred from it to the law (Rom 4:14).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

This verse contains the direct inference from the argument stated in Gal_3:15. When a document has been sealed, no subsequent addition can affect it. The Law was subsequent to the promise; therefore the Law cannot affect it.

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

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

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

Four hundred and thirty years after.—The giving of the Law from Mount Sinai is thus placed four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham. This would include the two periods of the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan and the sojourn in Egypt. According to another system of chronology, the sojourn in Egypt alone occupied four hundred and thirty—or, in round numbers, four hundred—years. Thus, in Gen_15:13, Abraham is warned that his seed is to be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and to be afflicted “four hundred years.” In Exo_12:40 it is expressly stated that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” In Act_7:6 the prophecy of Gen_15:13 is quoted: the people were to be “entreated evil four hundred years.” It is noticeable, however, that in Exo_12:40, which is the least ambiguous of the three passages, the L.XX. and Samaritan Pentateuch add, “and in the land of Canaan,” so as to make the four hundred and thirty years cover the whole of the two periods, in agreement with the present passage. It has been thought that an examination of the genealogy of Levi favours the same reckoning. It would seem, however, that there were two systems of chronology really current. Josephus adopts both in different parts of his writings (comp. Ant. ii. 15, § 2, with Ant. ii. 9, § 1; Wars, v. 9, § 4), and both are represented in other writers of the period, or not very much later. It is possible that the shorter reckoning may have arisen from difficulties observed in the longer, though it may be questioned whether it does not raise greater difficulties itself.

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

17. And this I say] This is what I mean. St Paul here reverts to, and continues the argument of Gal_3:15, which had been interrupted by the explanatory words, ‘He saith not … is Christ’.

confirmed before of God] Confirmed by oath (see Heb_6:17-18). This does not refer to the repetition of the promise to Isaac and Jacob, although by such repetition the promise may be regarded as extending over the patriarchal period down to the going down into Egypt. This makes the four hundred and thirty years agree with the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, as recorded Exo_12:40. Into the difficulty of reconciling this with the period arrived at by a calculation of the genealogies, it is not necessary to enter. (See Alford’s and Lightfoot’s notes.) For St Paul’s argument it is only necessary that the giving of the law should have been long after the announcement of the covenant promise.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

another (h) of their writers says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should make the promise confirmed

of no effect.

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

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

Four hundred and thirty years—On the chronological discrepancies here, (with which St. Paul’s reasoning has nothing to do,) consult note on Gen_15:13.

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

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

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ (touto degw diaqhkhn prokekurwmenhn uJpo tou Qeou Receptus adds, eijv Criston); and I say this: a covenant confirmed before of God. We have here the application of the aphorism laid down in ver. 15. "And I say this;" that is," And what I have to say is this." As God had already before made a solemn covenant with Abraham and his seed, the Law given so long after cannot have been intended to do away with it; fundamental principles of even human civil equity disallow of any such procedure. "Confirmed before." If the confirmation or ratification is to be distinguished as additional to the solemn announcement, we may find it either in the "seal" of circumcision, (Rom_4:11) or in the oath "with which God interposed" (Heb_6:17) after the sacrifice of Isaac. The words eijv Ceiston, "with reference to Christ," are expunged from the text by most recent editors. If genuine, they would seem intended to emphasize that position of "Christ" (i.e. in effect his Church) as future copartner with Abraham, which has been already affirmed in the preceding verse. The Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (oJ metasia kaikonta eth Receptus reads eth before tetrakosia, instead of here, with no difference to the sense egeonwmov); the Law, having come into existence four hundred and thirty years after. This number of years the apostle finds in Exo_12:40, Exo_12:41. In the Hebrew text of that passage this term of four hundred and thirty years defines the stay of the Israelites" in Egypt." But in the Septuagint, as well as in the Samaritan text, the term defines the sojourn of the Israelites ("themselves and their fathers" is, according to Tischendorf, added in the Alexandrian manuscript) "in the laud of Egypt and in the land of Canaan." With the view presented by this Septuagintal version agrees a definite statement of Josephus ("Ant.," 2:15, 2), "They left Egypt four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt." In two other passages, however ("Ant.," 2:9, 1; "Bell. Jud:," 5:9, 4), Josephus speaks of the affliction in Egypt as lasting "four hundred years;" probably following in this computation the period mentioned in the Divine communication recorded in Gen_15:13, and cited by St. Stephen (Act_7:6) in his defence. It is unnecessary here to attempt to determine the chronological question, which is one not free from difficulty. Our readers are referred to some valuable observations of Canon Cook"s, in his note on Exo_12:40; who on apparently strong grounds considers that a longer period than two hundred and fifteen years must be allowed for the sojourn in Egypt (see, however, Mr. Reginald S. Peele"s article, "Chronology," in "Dictionary of the Bible," vol. 1. pp. 321, 322). If the Hebrew text of Exo_12:40 as we have it is correct, and if the Septuagintal version of it errs in including the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canoan in the there mentioned period of four hundred and thirty years, then the number of years which the apostle here specifies, counting apparently from Abraham"s arrival in Canaan when he received the first of the promises cited above in the note on ver. 16, is less than he would have been justified in stating by the interval between Abraham"s arrival in Canaan and Jacob"s going down into Egypt. But, however, even if the apostle"s mind adverted to this particular point at all, which may or may not have been the case, it plainly would not have been worth his while to surprise and perplex his readers by specifying a number of years different from that which they found in the Greek Bible, which both he and they were accustomed to use, even though the greater number would have in a slight degree added to the force of his argument. Cannot dis-annul (oujk ajkuroi); doth not disannul. The present tense is used, because the apostle is describing the present position. That it should make the promise of none effect (eijv to katarghsai than). The "covenant" is here to a certain degree distinguished from "the promise." The latter, being the fundamental and characteristic portion of the former, is brought prominently forward, for the purpose of illustrating the character of the Christian economy as being above all things one of grace and gratuitous bestowment. The feeling also, perhaps, underlies the words that with one of generous spirit and who so large-hearted and munificent as God? in proportion as a promise which he has given is large and spontaneous, and the expectation raised by it eager and joyous, in that proportion is it impossible for him to baulk the promisee of his hope. The "promise" was "To thee and to thy seed will I give this land;" the covenant," that Jehovah would be their God, and that they should recognize him as such.

Vers. 17, 18.

The irreversibleness of the covenant by the Law.

however, I say, that the covenant that has been confirmed before in reference to Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, does not disannul, that it should do away with the promise.

I THE COVENANT ON ITS OWN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION.

1. It stands irrevocable and indestructible because it has been confirmed by God, that is, by an oath; for, "Because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee". (Heb_6:13, Heb_6:14) This oath is to us the sure ground of hope.

2. It has exclusive relation to Christ regarded as the Head of the Church.

He sealed this covenant with his blood, and thus the "cup of blessing" in the Lord"s Supper has become "the new covenant in his blood." All covenant blessings reach us by Christ through his Spirit.

3. It stood for ages alone. The Law came four hundred and thirty years after.

II THE INABILITY OF THE LAW TO AFFECT THE COVENANT.

1. The Law and the covenant proceed on two entirely different lines, and cannot therefore traverse each others course.

2. The lateness of the Law, as a historic institute, leaves the covenant as it found it in the ages of its undisputed validity. Thereore the Law cannot disannul the covenant so as to throw invalidity into the promise.

III THE INHERITANCE NOT POSSIBLE BY THE LAW, BUT BY THE PROMISE. "For if the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise; but God has given it to Abraham by promise.

1. The inheritance covers more than the land of Canaan; it involves "the heirship of the world"; (Rom_4:13) but it symbolizes the blessings of the Messiah"s kingdom, and especially of that "better country" which was an object of wistful expectation to Abraham himself.

2. If the Law abrogates the covenant, the inheritance would in that case come of Law; but it is positively asserted that "God has given it the perfect tense marking the duration of the blessing Abraham by promise.

The everlasting covenant.

I DIVINE GRACE IS PLEDGED BY COVENANT. The grace here referred to is offered to Abraham and through him to all nations. (Gen_12:1-3) Thus offered in covenant, it is

(1) definitely promised by God,

(2) with the confirmation of an oath,

(3) on condition, however, of our faith.

We are not left to speculate about the grace of God as a possibility; it is distinctly revealed. Nor are we in doubt as to its permanence; it is pledged for the future.

II THE COVENANT OF DIVINE GRACE IS ETERNAL.

1. As a revelation of truth it is eternal. Truth does not vary with time. When once a genuine truth has been seen, no later knowledge of another truth can set it aside. The discovery of Australia did not invalidate the earlier discovery of America.

2. As a declaration of Gods will it is eternal. God does not vacillate, like a fickle, capricious despot. He is constancy itself. What he wills now he wills for ever.

3. As a pledge of Gods honour it is eternal. It is in infinite condescension to our weakness that God makes us a promise. We ought to be able to rely on his love and goodness alone. But since he has mercifully stooped to encourage us in our poor faith by promise and pledge, herein lies the greater assurance to us of his changeless grace.

III THE COVENANT OF GRACE IS MORE ANCIENT THAN THE CURSE OF THE LAW. The Judaizers claim precedence for the Law over the gospel because of its greater antiquity. But St. Paul reminds them that the promise on which the gospel is founded is a still more ancient Divine word. Grace precedes wrath; love is anterior to Law. The first vision of God is a revelation of loving-kindness. The weight and dignity of hoary age are with the blessings of God"s goodness. A shallow research discovers Law; dig deeper, penetrate further, and you find love.

IV LATER DIVINE UTTERANCES MAY OBSCURE BUT CANNOT ABOLISH THE COVENANT OF GRACE.

1. They may obscure it. The severity of the Law appeared to hide the gracious promise to Abraham. Dark dispensations of Providence sometimes come between us and God"s love. We cannot reconcile the harder with the more pleasing utterances of Scripture. Stern voices sometimes repel us when we are hungering for gentle voices to comfort.

2. Nevertheless, these later revelations do not nullify the earlier promises. The grace is still undiminished, though for a time it is beyond our gaze and grasp. Presently it will break out in more than its pristine splendour, as the sun shines more brightly than ever after it has been hidden by a brief summer shower. The purpose of grace both precedes and outlives the threatenings of Law. The thunders of Sinai are but an interlude between the promise of love at Bethel and its fulfilment at Bethlehem. W.F.A.

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

And this I say - What I mean is this. The covenant which was before confirmed of God - By the promise itself, by the repetition of it, and by a solemn oath, concerning the blessing all nations. Through Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after - Counting from the time when the promise was first made to Abraham, Gen. xii, 2, 3. Doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of no effect - With regard to all nations, if only the Jewish were to receive it; yea, with regard to them also, if it was by works, so as to supersede it, and introduce another way of obtaining the blessing.

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

VERSE 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.

The Jews assert that God was not satisfied with His promises, but after four hundred and thirty years He gave the Law. "God," they say, "must have mistrusted His own promises, and considered them inadequate for salvation. Therefore He added to His promises something better, the Law. The Law," they say, "canceled the promises."

Paul answers: "The Law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise was made to Abraham. The Law could not cancel the promise because the promise was the testament of God, confirmed by God in Christ many years before the Law. What God has once promised He does not take back. Every promise of God is a ratified promise."

Why was the Law added to the promise? Not to serve as a medium by which the promise might be obtained. The Law was added for these reasons: That there might be in the world a special people, rigidly controlled by the Law, a people out of which Christ should be born in due time; and that men burdened by many laws might sigh and long for Him, their Redeemer, the seed of Abraham. Even the ceremonies prescribed by the Law foreshadowed Christ. Therefore the Law was never meant to cancel the promise of God. The Law was meant to confirm the promise until the time should come when God would open His testament in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God did well in giving the promise so many years before the Law, that it may never be said that righteousness is granted through the Law and not through the promise. If God had meant for us to be justified by the Law, He would have given the Law four hundred and thirty years before the promise, at least He would have given the Law at the same time He gave the promise. But He never breathed a word about the Law until four hundred years after. The promise is therefore better than the Law. The Law does not cancel the promise, but faith in the promised Christ cancels the Law.

The Apostle is careful to mention the exact number of four hundred and thirty years. The wide divergence in the time between the promise and the Law helps to clinch Paul’s argument that righteousness is not obtained by the Law.

Let me illustrate. A man of great wealth adopts a strange lad for his son. Remember, he does not owe the lad anything. In due time he appoints the lad heir to his entire fortune. Several years later the old man asks the lad to do something for him. And the young lad does it. Can the lad then go around and say that he deserved the inheritance by his obedience to the old man’s request ? How can anybody say that righteousness is obtained by obedience to the Law when the Law was given four hundred and thirty years after God’s promise of the blessing?

One thing is certain, Abraham was never justified by the Law, for the simple reason that the Law was not in his day. If the Law was non-existent how could Abraham obtain righteousness by the Law? Abraham had nothing else to go by but the promise. This promise he believed and that was counted unto him for righteousness. If the father obtained righteousness through faith, the children get it the same way.

We use the argument of time also. We say our sins were taken away by the death of Christ fifteen hundred years ago, long before there were any religious orders, canons, or rules of penance, merits, etc. What did people do about their sins before these new inventions were hatched up?

Paul finds his arguments for the righteousness of faith everywhere. Even the element of time serves to build his case against the false apostles. Let us fortify our conscience with similar arguments. They help us in the trials of our faith. They turn our attention from the Law to the promises, from sin to righteousness; from death to life.

It is not for nothing that Paul bears down on this argument. He foresaw this confusion of the promise and the Law creeping into the Church. Accustom yourself to separate Law and Gospel even in regard to time. When the Law comes to pay your conscience a visit, say: "Mister Law, you come too soon. The four hundred and thirty years aren’t up yet. When they are up, you come again. Won’t you ?"

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.

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

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.

17. And this I say. He returns to the argument introduced in verse 15. That the covenant. He has just shown that this covenant was not only with Abraham, but with his spiritual seed, and hence must continue in effect until Christ came. Hence the law, made over four centuries after the covenant was given, could not disannul it. The covenant made with Abraham is still in force. Four hundred and thirty years. According to Usher's Chronology, the promise was made to Abraham in b.c. 1921; the law was given at Sinai b.c. 1491; the interval is 430 years. But some have held that Paul made a mistake because in Exod. 12:12 it said that Hebrews were in Egypt 430 years. The matter is easily explained. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament is the one usually followed by Christ and his apostles. Its translators, following the Hebrew copy before them, render Exodus 12:12, “The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” Whether this is right, or our Hebrew text, does not matter. Paul gave the usually received statement. His point was simply that the law was given many ages after the covenant with Abraham.

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.

430 years

"four hundred and thirty years" (See: Numbers)

For if the inheritance comes by the law, then it no longer comes by promise

Paul is speaking of a situation that did not exist to emphasize that the inheritance came only by means of the promise. AT: "the inheritance comes to us by means of the promise, because we could not keep the demands of God's law" (See: Hypothetical Situations)

inheritance

Receiving what God has promised believers is spoken of as if it were an inheritance of property and wealth from a family member, and eternal blessings and redemption. (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

covenant

inherit

law

promise

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

17. ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. Text. Rec. adds εἰς Χριστὸν with DGKL syrr.

17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω. Now what I mean, by using the figure in Gal 3:15.

διαθήκην. St Paul here distinctly passes from the general notion of διαθήκη (Gal 3:15 note) to the special, i.e. to God’s great disposition to Abraham.

προκεκυρωμένην[103]. The preposition strengthens the thought of time already lying in the perfect. The confirmation may be seen in the vision of the burning lamp (Genesis 15), or the repetition of the promise, or the oath (Heb 6:13-14 referring to Gen 22:16-17).

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

ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. See notes on Textual Criticism.

ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος. St Paul is not concerned with the question as to who gave the Law, or with that of its being “given” at all, but only with the fact of its having come into existence (γεγονώς).

St Paul’s period of 430 years from Abraham to the exodus is practically that of the LXX. in Exo 12:40 sq. (ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χανάαν ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα [+ πέντε Β*]), which is also that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus, Ant. II. 15. 2 (§ 318), Jerusalem Targum on Exo 12:40 (the Fragmenten-targum does not contain this verse). Compare also Charles’ note on the Book of Jubilees 14:13. But St Stephen, Act 7:6 (though using “400” as a round number), follows the Hebrew of Exo 12:40, according to which the 430 years were all spent in Egypt, and so Philo (Quis rer. div. her. 54, § 269) and Josephus (Ant. II. 9. 1 [§ 204]; B.J. v. 9. 4 [§ 382]). So also Gen 15:13.

οὐκ ἀκυροῖ, “does not repeal,” Mat 15:6 || Mar 7:13[104]; stronger than ἀθετεῖ, Gal 3:15. See Swete on Mar 7:13. Cf. the juristic formula in the papyri εἰς ἀθέτησιν καὶ ἀκύρωσιν (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 228, and Moulton and Milligan in Expositor, VII. 5, 1908, p. 177).

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

εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι (Gal 5:4; Gal 5:11) τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. “So as to make the promise of none effect” (R.V.). Compare Rom 4:14. The force of εἰς τὸ is to express the “measure of effect, or result” (see Moulton, Proleg., 1906, p. 219).

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.

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

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

17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· “Now this I mean.” The function of this phrase is to take up for further argument or explanation a thought already expressed. Cf. 1Co 1:12 and similar phrases in 1Co 7:29, 1Co 10:29, 16:50. The following phrase, διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, shows that the reversion of thought here intended is to the ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην of v. 15. V. 16 is, therefore, parenthetical.

διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ, εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. “A covenant previously established by God, the law which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards does not annul so as to make inoperative the promise.” The word διαθήκη is itself ambiguous, meaning either (a) “covenant,” “agreement,” or (b) “will,” “testament.” But the διαθήκη here referred to is manifestly that spoken of in Gen., chap. 17, and this alike in the thought of the O. T. writer, of the Lxx translators, and of Paul was essentially a covenant. Its fulfilment lay, indeed, in part in the distant future, pertaining even to generations yet unborn. In it God took the initiative, and it was primarily an expression of his grace and authority, not a bargain between equals. Yet none of these things contravene the character of a covenant, while its mutuality, its irrevocability (see v. 15), and the practical exclusion of the idea of the death of the testator, mark it as essentially a covenant and not a will. See on διαθήκη in v. 15 and detached note on Διαθήκη, p. 502. The emphatic elements of the sentence on which the argument turns are the προ- in προκεκυρωμένην, the phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, and μετά. The major premise of the argument is in κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς … ἐπιδιατάσσεται of v. 15; the minor premise is in the ὁ μετὰ … νόμος of this verse, while ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ over against the ἀνθρώπου of v. 15 heightens the force of the argument, giving it an a minori ad majus effect. If a covenant once in force can not be modified or annulled by any subsequent action, the covenant with Abraham can not be set aside by the subsequent law. If this is true of a man’s covenant, much more is it true of a covenant made by God with Abraham, since God must be more certainly true to his promises than man. Cf. Rom 3:4. The apostle is especially fond of arguments of this type. See the several illustrations in Rom., chap. 5.

The words εἰς Χριστόν after θεοῦ, found in the leading Western mss., and adopted by most Syrian authorities, are an interpretative addition, akin to and doubtless derived from v. 16.

The verb προκυρόω occurs elsewhere only in much later writers (Eus. Prœp. Evang. X 4, etc.). The προ- is temporal, and in this context means “before the law.” On the use of γίνομαι in the sense “to come,” “to appear in history,” see Mar 1:4, Joh 1:6, Joh 1:17, 1Jn 2:18. The perfect tense marks the coming of the law as something of which an existing result remains, in this case evidently the law itself. BMT 154. This phase of the meaning can not well be expressed in English. Cf. BMT 82.

The number four hundred and thirty is evidently derived by the apostle from Exo 12:40, where, though according to the Hebrew text, “the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years,” the Vatican ms. of the Lxx, with which agrees, also the Samaritan Pentateuch, reads: ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἥν κατῴκησαν ἐν γἥ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῆ Χανάαν ἔτη τετρακοσία τριάκοντα πέντε, but AF, perhaps also the second hand of B, omit πέντε (so Tdf.), and A adds αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. The expression καὶ ἐν γῆ Χανάαν, for which there is no equivalent in Hebrew, evidently refers to the residence in Canaan previous to that in Egypt, so that the whole period covered is, roughly speaking, from Abraham to Moses. On the comparison between this datum and Gen 15:13, quoted in the speech of Stephen, cf. Alf. on Gal. ad loc. For the apostle’s argument the length of the period has, of course, no significance, save that the longer the covenant had been in force, the more impressive is his statement.

That ὁ νόμος is the law promulgated by Moses, the participial phrase clearly shows; yet the presumption is that the apostle is still thinking of that law in the same light, or of the same aspect of it, as in 3:13 (q. v.); and there is the less reason to depart from that presumption because it is the supreme place which Paul’s opponents had given, in their doctrine of the basis of acceptance with God, to the legalistic element of the law that leads Paul to make the affirmation οὐκ ἀκυροῖ. The legalistic aspect is, therefore, though less in the foreground than in vv. 10, 12, 13, still present. See detached note on Νόμος, p. 457.

Ἀκυρόω, a late Greek word (1 Esd. 6:23; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 2. 72:43; Mat 15:6, Mar 7:13, Mar 7:4.Mal 2:1, Mal 2:5:18, Mal 2:7:14, Mal 2:17:2; Plut. Dio, 48:2; Apoph. lacon. 3), signifying “to make invalid,” whether by rescinding or by overriding, or otherwise (in Plut. Cic. 49:3, apparently in a more material sense, “to destroy”), is here used in the first sense. Cf. ἀθετεῖ, v. 15; M. and M. Voc. on ἀκυρόω and ἀθέτησις; and De.BS. p. 228, quoting from papyri the phrase εἰς ἀθέτησιν καὶ ἀκύρωσιν. Paul would not have denied that in the thought and practice of men law had displaced the covenant, but that law legitimately did so (as a new law may specifically repeal previous legislation). εἰς τό with the infinitive expresses the measure of effect or conceived result of ἀκυροῖ (BMT 411). καταργέω (of rare occurrence in Greek authors, in Lxx only 2 Ezr 4:21; Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:5; Ezr 6:8; in N. T. frequent in Paul, elsewhere only in Luk 13:7, Heb 2:14) means “to make ineffective, inoperative” (α-εργον). τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν signifies the same as αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι in v. 16, the singular here reflecting the substantial identity of the promises made on the several occasions, as the plural there recalls the various occasions and utterances.

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

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

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

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