Galatians 3:18

Gal_3:18

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise.

Law and promise

I. The law was restricted and conditional--added because of transgression: the promise was absolute and unconditional.

II. The law was temporary and provisional--until the seed should come: the promise was permanent and eternal.

III. The law was communicated indirectly--by angels: the promise was directly given by God (Heb_2:2-3).

IV. The law was received from God through a mediator: the promise was received by Abraham in person. (P. J. Gloag, D. D.)

The covenant of grace is called the promise, because God hath promised both the reward and the condition. And so--

I. It differs from human covenants. Among men each party undertaketh for and looketh after his own part of the engagement; but here the duties required of us are undertaken by Him that, requireth them. No man filleth his neighbours hand with anything to pay his rent to him, or enableth him to do what he hath covenanted to do; but God filleth our heart with a stock of habitual grace, with actual influences to draw forth habits into act (Eze_36:26-27; Jer_32:39-40).

II. It differs from the covenant of works. That had more of a law and less of a promise: there was a promise of reward to the obeyer but none of obedience. There man was to keep the covenant; here the covenant keepeth us (Jer_32:40). God undertaketh for both parties, and worketh in His people all that is required of them. (T. Manton.)

The inheritance of the promises

I. The promises of God to the believer an inexhaustible mine of wealth. Happy is it for him if he knows how to enrich himself with their hidden treasures.

II. They are an armoury containing all manner of offensive and defensive weapons. Blessed is he who has learned to enter the sacred arsenal, to put on the breastplate and the helmet, and to lay his hand to the spear and the sword.

III. They are a surgery in which the believer will find all manner of restoratives and blessed elixirs; nor lacks there an ointment for every wound, a cordial for every faintness, a remedy for every disease. Blessed is he who is well skilled in heavenly pharmacy, and knoweth how to lay hold on the healing virtues of the promises of God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Life gift

On these streets, I have seen the poor hanging on the steps of the rich, and refusing to be ordered away; to move pity, laying bare their sores; and holding out their skinny hands to implore mens charity. But whoever saw the rich following the poor, with a hand filled with gold;pressing money on their acceptance; stopping them; entreating, beseeching, imploring them to take it? Yet thus, to the amazement both of angels and devils, God does with you, in offering His Son; and through Him, the gift of eternal life. (Dr. Guthrie.)

Salvation all of grace

Mr. McLaren and Mr. Gustart were ministers of the Tolbooth Church, Edinburgh. When Mr. McLaren was dying, Mr. Gustart paid him a visit, and put the question to him, What are you doing, brother? His answer was, Doing! Ill tell you what I am doing, brother. I am gathering together all my prayers, all my sermons, all my good deeds, all my evil deeds; and I am going to throw them all overboard, and swim to glory on the plank of free grace. (E. Foster.)

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

3:18 The inheritance (see 4:1-7) cannot come through keeping the law, because that would nullify God’s promise to Abraham, which was accepted by faith before the law.

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

Gal 3:18. Εἰ, if) A conditional syllogism, of which, when the consequent is taken away, the antecedent is taken away; so that the conclusion is, therefore the inheritance is not from the law.—ὁ Θεὸς, God) Here the promise is expressly predicated of God.

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

Gal_3:18. I am right in denying, that through the law the διαθήκη passes out of force and the promise is to cease. The proof depends on the relation of contrast between law and promise, whereby the working of the one excludes the like working of the other. For if the possession of the Messianic salvation proceeds from the law, which must have been the case if Gods covenant with Abraham had lost its validity by means of the law, then this possession comes no longer from promise,a case which, although necessary on that supposition, cannot occur, as is evident from the precedent of Abraham, to whom salvation was given by God through promise. The mode of conclusion adopted in Rom_4:14 is similar.

ἐκ νόμου] so that the law is the institution which causes this result (in the way of following its commandments). Comp. on ἐν νόμῳ, Gal_3:11.

ἡ κληρονομία] the possession, נַחֲלָה, refers in the theocratic-historical sense of the O.T. to the land of Canaan and its several portions (Deu_4:21; Jos_13:23); but in its N.T. sense, the conception of the κληρονομία is elevated to the idea of its Messianic fulfilment (Mat_5:5), so that the kingdom of the Messiah and the whole of its fulness of salvation and glory are understood thereby (1Co_6:9; Gal_5:21; Eph_5:5; Act_20:32, et al.). Comp. on Rom_4:13; Eph_1:11. So also here; and Paul uses this word (not ἡ σωτηρία, ἡ ζωή, or the like) because he has previously (see on Gal_3:16) referred to passages in which the κληρονομία (that is, according to this Christian idealizing of the O.T. historical sense: the kingdom of the Messiah) is promised.

οὐκέτι] The one relation, if it exists, cancels the other. It is (in opposition to Koppe) the logical (not historical) no longer. Comp. Rom_7:17; Rom_11:6.

διʼ ἐπαγγελίας] by means of promise, so that in his case the possession of the Messianic salvation is the fulfilment (by way of grace) of a promise, and not the possible result (by way of reward) of rendering prescribed services, and the like, which fall under the idea of the νόμος.

κεχάρισται] sc. τὴν κληρονομίαν donavit (Vulgate), bestowed by way of gift (the contrast to ὀφείλημα, Rom_4:4; Rom_4:16), namely, as a future possession to be realized at the time of the παρουσία (Mat_8:11). On χαρίζεσθαι τινί τι, comp. Rom_8:32; 1Co_2:12; Php_1:29; Php_2:9; Act_27:24; Xen. Cyrop. 8:6. 22; Polyb. xvi. 24. 9. Without supplying anything, Schott and Matthias render: to Abraham God has, through promise, been gracious. Comp. Holsten: He has bestowed a favour on him. But the supplying of τὴν κληρονομίαν harmonizes best with the immediate context and the logical relation of the two divisions of the verse, the second of which forms the propositio minor, and therefore, like the major, must speak of the κληρονομία.[139] Caspari (in d. Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.), following classical usage, but not that of the N.T., has wrongly taken κεχάρισται in a passive sense, so that God is conceived as the inheritance. This is in opposition to the context, and also against the view of the N.T. generally, according to which the κληρονομία proceeds from God (Rom_8:17), and is not God Himself, but eternal life (Gal_3:21; Tit_3:7; Mat_19:29, et al.), the kingdom of the Messiah (Gal_5:21; 1Co_6:9; 1Co_15:50; Jam_2:5), and its salvation (Rom_1:16) and dominion (Rom_4:13 f.; Mat_5:5; 2Ti_2:12).

[139] Ver. 18 is a syllogismus conditionalis of the nature of a dilemma, the conclusion of which, because self-obvious, is not expressed.

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.

An objection: We grant that the promise was not abrogated by the covenant of the Law, and therefore we join the Law with the promise. Nay, saith the Apostle, these two cannot stand together, to wit, that the inheritance should both be given by the Law and also by promise, for the promise is free: whereby it followeth, that the Law was not given to justify, for by that means the promise should be broken.

By this word (inheritance) is meant the right of the seed, which is, that God should be our God, that is to say, that by virtue of the covenant that was made with faithful Abraham, we that be faithful, might by that means be blessed of God as well as he.

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

the inheritance--all the blessings to be inherited by Abraham's literal and spiritual children, according to the promise made to him and to his Seed, Christ, justification and glorification (Gal 4:7; Rom 8:17; Co1 6:9).

but God, &c.--The Greek order requires rather, "But to Abraham it was by promise that God hath given it." The conclusion is, Therefore the inheritance is not of, or from 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 18. For if the inheritance be of the law] See the preceding arguments, in which this is proved.

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

18. If the inheritance be of the law. His opponents might still reply, that nothing was farther from their intention than to weaken or disannul God’s covenant. To deprive them of every kind of subterfuge, he comes forward with the assertion, that salvation by the law, and salvation by the promise of God, are wholly inconsistent with each other. Who will dare to explain this as applying to ceremonies alone, while Paul comprehends under it whatever interferes with a free promise? Beyond all doubt, he excludes works of every description. “For,” says he to the Romans,

“if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.” (Romans 4:14.)

Why so? Because salvation would be suspended on the condition of satisfying the law; and so he immediately concludes:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, in order that the promise might be sure to all the seed.” (Romans 4:16.)

Let us carefully remember the reason why, in comparing the promise with the law, the establishment of the one overturns the other. The reason is, that the promise has respect to faith, and the law to works. Faith receives what is freely given, but to works a reward is paid. And he immediately adds, God gave it to Abraham, not by requiring some sort of compensation on his part, but by free promise; for if you view it as conditional, the word gave, (κεχάρισται,) would be utterly inapplicable.

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.

(18) The fulfilment of the promise is unaffected by the Law. For it is not dependent upon the Law, or upon the Law and the promise combined (the Law modifying the promise), but upon the promise alone. The Law does not come in at all. Law and promise—in other words, contract and free gift—are incompatible ideas. But the land of Canaan was promised to Abraham as a free gift, and as a free gift the spiritual Canaan is thrown open to his spiritual descendants.

The inheritance.—In the first instance, the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan; but here understood of the spiritual blessings of the Messianic kingdom.

Gave it.—In the original a strong word: God hath freely given it. There is an antithesis to the idea of “covenant” or “contract,” in which both parties have to perform a part. The promise was given by God to Abraham freely, gratuitously, unfettered by any engagement on his side by the non-fulfilment of which it might be made void.

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

18. The concluding words of the previous verse suggest the thought—‘Yes, the promise would be at once invalidated, if the inheritance were dependent on the law’. Law and promises, works and faith, are opposing principles, of which the antagonism is most clearly seen in their issues—condemnation and justification. We have a parallel passage in Rom_4:13; comp. also Rom_11:6.

God gave it] Has bestowed as a free gift. ‘The perfect tense marks the permanence of its effects.’ Bp. Lightfoot. All who enjoy it or shall enjoy it, do so as the gift of God’s sovereign mercy, unsolicited, unmerited, unconditional. To see the force of the verb here rendered ‘gave’, we may compare Luk_7:42, ‘he frankly (freely) forgave them’, ‘made them a present of the amount owed’, Rom_8:32; 1Co_2:12.

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.

For if the inheritance be of the law,.... By the inheritance is meant, either the eternal inheritance, everlasting life and happiness in heaven, which is the gift of God through Christ, and not attained to and enforced by the works of the law; or particularly the blessing of justification, promised in the covenant to Abraham, and his spiritual seed; even to the Gentiles, and inherited by them; which is not obtained through obedience to the law of works, nor does it belong to those who seek for it by the deeds of the law, for these are not heirs of it; see Rom 4:14. For was this the case,

it is no more of promise; it cannot be by merit and by promise, by works and grace too; these can never be reconciled, and consist together; if it is by promise, then not of the law; and if it is of the law, it is not by promise: "but" nothing is more certain than this, that

God gave it, freely, without any consideration of the works of the law,

to Abraham by promise; wherefore justification is not by works, but by the free grace of God, through faith in the righteousness of Christ; and in this way men become heirs according to the hope of eternal life: all which is directly opposite to the notion of the Jews, who say, that, ,

"for the reward of the commandments, men shall inherit paradise (k).''

(k) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 152. 3.

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

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

Ver. 18. Gave it to Abraham] Gr. κεχαρισται, freely gave it. What is more free than a gift? And what better freehold than the divine promise?

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.

For if the inheritance - The inheritance promised to Abraham. The sum of the promise was, that “he should be the heir of the world;” see Rom 4:13, and the note at that verse. To that heirship or inheritance Paul refers here, and says that it was an essential part of it that it was to be in virtue of the promise made to him, and not by fulfilling the Law.

Be of the law - If it is by observing the Law of Moses; or if it come in any way by the fulfilling of law. This is plain. Yet the Jews contended that the blessings of justification and salvation were to be in virtue of the observance of the Law of Moses. But if so, says Paul, then it could not be by the promise made to Abraham, since there could not be two ways of obtaining the same blessing.

But God gave it to Abraham by promise - That, says Paul, is a settled point. It is perfectly clear; and that is to be held as an indisputable fact, that the blessing was given to Abraham by a promise. That promise was confirmed and ratified hundreds of years before the Law was given, and the giving of the Law could not affect it. But that promise was, that he would be the ancestor of the Messiah, and that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Of course, if they were to be blessed in this way, then it was not to be by the observance of the Law, and the Law must have been given for a different purpose. What that was, he states in the following verses.

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

If the inheritance of the heavenly Canaan, typified by the earthly Canaan, the promise of which was made to Abraham, be to be obtained by the fulfilling of the law, and yielding obedience to it, then it is no more of the promise. It is much the same with what the apostle said before, Rom 4:14; and with what he had said, Rom 11:6; If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work. He shows, that there is an opposition between grace and work, the law and the promise; that which is of grace, and of the promise, is of free love; that which is of works, and the law, is wages, and a reward of debt.

But (saith the apostle) God gave the inheritance to Abraham by promise; he of his free love engaging himself thereunto.

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

18. Nor must the law be credited as the ground of the inheritance; for law and promise are contrary things: and the historic truth is, that God gave it to Abraham by promise.

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

For if the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise (eij gamou hJ klhronomia or, oujk eti ejx ejpaggeliav); for if from a Law the inheritance accrues, it accrues no longer from a promise. The two nouns "Law" and "promise" have no article, being regarded here in their several characteristic principles, which were not only diverse, but contrary. The Law says, "The man that doeth these things shall live by them;" and this while enforcing a great variety of minute positive principles by severe threats and penalties. The promise bestows of free grace without works. The promised bestowment is here styled "inheritance," because received by Abraham"s seed as his heirs. (see ver. 29 and Gal_4:1) In the Old Testament it is a favourite designation of the land of Canaan; as e.g. in ti Psa_105:11. Here it relates to a spiritual possession. Oujke seems preferred by editors of the text, when used logically, as if it were, It no longer appears to be; (so Rom_7:17 Rom_11:6) whereas oujk eti might be referred to a change which took place at the time when the Law was given. But God gave it to Abraham by promise (tw de jAbraaav kecaristai oJ Qeov); but God hath freely given it to Abraham by promise. The verb carizomai emphatically marks a gilt as freely and lavishly bestowed (compare its use in Rom_8:32; 1Co_2:12) The perfect tense points to the now and evermore enduring effect of the promise. The position of oJ Qeov is emphatic God, no less than he! (comp. Rom_8:31) The march of this sentence, with which the apostle closes up this paragraph of the discussion, gives, as it stands in the Greek, the reader to feel the apostle"s soul dilating with wonder cud delight as he gives expression to the two notions the gracious freeness of the gift, and the Divine personality of the Giver. The mention here of Abraham alone, without "his seed," is perhaps due to the apostle"s sense of the long priority of this guaranteed bestowment to the giving of the Law. In appreciating the tone of the passage, we must not lose sight of the venerableness of this personage, the primordial father, not only of the Hebrew race, but of all believers in Christ to the end of the world.

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

And again - This is a new argument. The former was drawn from the time, this from the nature, of the transaction. If the eternal inheritance be obtained by keeping the law, it is no more by virtue of the free promise - These being just opposite to each other. But it is by promise. Therefore it is not by the law.

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

VERSE 18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise.

In Rom 4:14, the Apostle writes: "For if they which are made of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect." It cannot be otherwise. That the Law is something entirely different from the promise is plain. The Law thunders: "Thou shalt, thou shalt not." The promise of the "seed" pleads: "Take this gift of God." If the inheritance of the gifts of God were obtained by the Law, God would be a liar. We would have the right to ask Him: "Why did you make this promise in the first place: ’In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’? Why did you not say: ’In thy works thou shalt be blessed’?"

VERSE 18. But God gave it to Abraham by promise.

So much is certain, before the Law ever existed, God gave Abraham the inheritance or blessing by the promise. In other words, God granted unto Abraham remission of sins, righteousness, salvation, and everlasting life. And not only to Abraham but to all believers, because God said: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The blessing was given unconditionally. The Law had no chance to butt in because Moses was not yet born. "How then can you say that righteousness is obtained by the Law?"

The Apostle now goes to work to explain the province and purpose of the Law.

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.

For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. [Brethren, I wish to use an illustration taken from our daily business life, viz.: that of our usage concerning contracts or agreements. Now if, when a human contract has once been confirmed, it becomes so sacred that no man will presume to annul or change it without the consent of both parties, much more is a covenant of God's too sacred to be modified or tampered with. But God made such a ratified or confirmed contract or covenant with Abraham, for he spoke promises to Abraham, and to his seed. Not in fact meaning to Abraham and all his posterity, but to Abraham and his spiritual posterity (for he used a word which may be so interpreted), for he did not use the plural "seeds," but the singular "seed," thereby referring especially to Christ as the head of the spiritual posterity. Now, I say therefore, that this covenant, having been confirmed before the law came, still holds good, and can not be annulled by the coming of the law, for the law, as you know, did not come until four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed. Now, to sum up what I have said, the promise, being given to the seed of Abraham, becomes to them an inheritance, and inheritances do not come from two parties, but from one; so, if the inheritance had been derived from the law, it could not have been derived from the promise also; but it was derived from the promise, since God thus gave it to Abraham. We lack space for the grammatical and chronological difficulties of this passage. Suffice it to say, "seed," being a collective noun, is capable of being applied to many; but it is also, as Paul says, capable of being applied to one, and none of his auditors would object at all to his thus applying it solely to Christ. Again, if the term of four hundred and thirty years is inaccurate, it is the number given in the Septuagint, which was then universally used. And, for argumentative purposes, was sufficiently correct as a round number.]

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.

18. If the inheritance be of the law. Law and promise exclude each other. The legal heir receives his inheritance by law, if there be no will; one not a legal heir may receive it by the promise of a will. The inheritance was given to Abraham by promise; and ours depends on the promise.

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.

18. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου κ.τ.λ. I say καταργ. τ. ἐπαγ. for the Law and the promise are so fundamentally different in their nature that if the inheritance promised in the διαθήκη after all springs from the Law (or perhaps “from law”), it no longer springs from promise. The anarthrous ἐπαγγελίας (contrast Gal 3:17), i.e. promise as such, probably determines in this verse the meaning of νόμου, i.e. law as such.

ἡ κληρονομία. While we must keep “inheritance” as a translation (rather than any such word as “apportionment”) because of its connexion with “heirs,” Gal 3:29, Gal 4:1; Gal 4:7, it must be remembered that according to Hort (see his important note on 1Pe 1:4) it “apparently contains no implication of hereditary succession, as it does usually in classical Greek. The sense is rather ‘sanctioned and settled possession.’ ” The κληρονομία of Israel was originally the land of Canaan, as is implied in Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 13:17; Gen 17:8; Gen 24:7, but the word readily lent itself to include, as here, all spiritual privileges present and future, which are “the fulfilment of ancient longings of men and ancient promises of God.” See also Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 167 sqq.

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ διʼ ἐπαγγελίας. The fact is certain. It was by promise not law.

κεχάρισται ὁ θεός. God not only promised the inheritance, but He has given it freely by promise and the gift abides. St Paul’s fresh word emphasises the freeness of the gift and the tense its permanence. So Act 27:24; Rom 8:32: Phm 1:22. The fact that God’s disposition has been given once for all by promise forbids any essential alteration of it. “A διαθήκη,” says Philo, “is a symbol of grace, which God has placed between Himself who proffers it and man who receives it; and this is the very extravagance of beneficence, that there is nothing between God and the soul except His own virgin grace” (De Mut. Nom., 6 §§ 52 sq., Young’s translation).

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.

18.] See Rom 4:14. For if the inheritance (the general term for all the blessings promised to Abraham, as summed up in his Seed who was to inherit the land,—in other words, for the Kingdom of Christ: see 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10) is of the law (i.e. by virtue of the law, having as its ground the covenant of the law) it is no more (οὐκ ἔτι, as νῦν in argumentative passages, not of time, but logical—the οὐκ follows on the hypothesis) of (by virtue of) promise: but (the ‘but’ of a demonstration, appealing to a well-known fact) to Abraham by promise hath God granted (it) (and therefore it is not of the Law).

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

18. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· “For if the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise.” As in v. 12, the apostle excludes the possibility of a compromise between the two principles, and so justifies the use of the strong terms ἀκυροῖ and καταργῆσαι. I say “annul” and “make of no account,” for if the law affects the promise at all, it annuls it. It can not be added to it; it destroys it. The previous reference to the διαθήκη and the ἐπαγγελία make it clear that ἡ κληρονομία—note the restrictive article—refers to the possession promised in the covenant (Gen 13:15, Gen 13:15:7, Gen 13:17:8; cf. Rom 4:13, Rom 4:14), which was with Abraham and his seed. This promised possession, while consisting materially in the promised land, was the expression of God’s favour and blessing (cf., e. g., 2Ch 6:27, Ps. Son 7:2, 9:2, 14:3, ὅτι ἡ μέρις καὶ ἡ κληρονομία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν Ἰσραήλ, 17:26), and the term easily becomes in the Christian vocabulary a designation of the blessing of God which they shall obtain who through faith become acceptable to God (see Act 20:32, 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10, 1Co 6:15:50, Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5, Col 3:24), of which blessing the Spirit, as the initial gift of the new life (v. 2) is the earnest (2Co 1:22, 2Co 5:5, Eph 1:13, Eph 1:14, Eph 1:4:30), and so the fulfilment of the promise (v. 14). Such a spiritualised conception in general doubtless underlies the apostle’s use of it here. Cf. Rom 4:14 and the suggestion of v. 14 above, that he thought of the promise to Abraham as a promise of the Spirit. But for the purposes of his argument at this point, the content of the κληρονομία is not emphasised. It was whatever the covenant promised to Abraham and to his seed. His opponents would concede that this was a spiritual, not simply a material, blessing.

Κληρονομία (κλῆρος, “a share,” νέμω, “to distribute”), found in Isocrates, Demosthenes, and other classical writers, is in their writings usually a possession obtained by inheritance, but sometimes possession without the idea of inheritance (Aristot. Nic. Eth. 7. 14:6 [1153 b32]). In the papyri it is used either of one’s estate, which is to pass to one’s heirs, or of that which one receives by inheritance: Pap. Amh. II 72:6, 8; BGU. I 19, II 3, 350:4, 5; Pap. Tebt. II 319:5, 29, et freq. It occurs very often in the Lxx, in the great majority of cases as the translation of נַחֲלָה. This Hebrew word, originally signifying “gift,” then “possession,” or “share,” often refers to the possession given to Israel in Canaan (Deu 12:9, Deu 19:14, Jdg 20:6, Isa 58:14, 1Ch 16:16-18; cf. Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8, where, however, the Heb. has אֲחֻזָה and the Lxx κατάσχεσις); or to the share of a particular tribe (Josh. chap. 19); or to Israel, or the land of Israel, as the possession of God (Deu 4:20, Psa_78[79]1). Sometimes it denotes an inheritance, usually, however, not in the sense of property received by inheritance, but of property which is left by one at death, or which will by usage pass to one’s descendants (Num 27:7-11, 36:Num 27:2-4, Num 27:7, Num 27:8). Rarely, if ever, does it refer to property transmitted by will; but see Job 42:15. κληρονομία in the Lxx has the same range of meaning. See also Sir. 44:19-23, Ps. Son 7:2, Son 7:9:2, 14:3, Son 7:6, 15:12, 17:26. In N. T., though always translated “inheritance” in E. V., only in Luk 12:13 does it refer strictly to property received or transmitted by inheritance. In Mat 21:38, Mar 12:7, Luk 20:14, Act 7:5, Heb 11:8 it means “property,” “possessions” in the material sense. In Act 20:32, Eph 1:14, Eph 1:18, Eph 1:5:5, Col 3:24, Heb 9:15, 1Pe 1:4, it is used figuratively of a spiritual blessing which men are to receive from God. It is in this sense of “promised possession” that it is doubtless to be taken here, consistently with the use of διαθήκη in the sense of “covenant.” Nor is there anything in the usage of κληρονομία to combat this sense of δικθήκη.

The anarthrous nouns νόμου and ἐπαγγελίας are both to be taken qualitatively: the actual things referred to are ὁ νόμος and ἡ ἐπαγγελία (see on v. 17), but are by these phrases presented not individually as the law and the promise, but qualitatively as law and promise. The legalistic aspect of the law is a shade more in thought here than in v. 17. ἐκ denotes source, specifically that on which something depends (Th. s. v. II 6), and ἐκ νόμου is substantially equivalent to ἐν νόμῳ in v. 11. οὐκέτι is to be taken not temporally but logically, as in Rom 7:17, Rom 7:20, Rom 7:11:6 (Gal 2:20, cited as an example of this usage by Grimm, is probably not such, but suggests how the logical use might grow out of the temporal). The conditional clause, as in chap. 2:21, sets forth as a simple supposition what the apostle in fact regards as a condition contrary to fact. See BMT 243.

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ διʼ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός. “but to Abraham God granted it by promise.” The implied object of the verb is evidently τὴν κληρονομίαν. κεχάρισται emphasises the gracious, uncommercial, character of the grant, and the perfect tense marks the grant as one still in force, thus recalling the argument of vv. 15-17. The statement as a whole constitutes the minor premise of which the preceding sentence is the major premise. If the inheritance is by law, it is not by promise; but it is by promise; therefore it is not by law.

Χαρίζομαι is used from Homer down in the general sense “to do something pleasant or agreeable” (to another), “to do one a favour”; in N. T. with the meanings (a) “to forgive” and (b) “to grant graciously”; cf. Rom 8:32, etc.

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

In the analogy of verse 15 there was contemplated the double possibility of invalidation or addition. With relation to God 's promise, the Judaisers insisted on addition; since, while they preached faith in the promise and in its fulfillment in Christ, they made the inheritance of the promise dependent upon the fulfilling of the law. Paul, on the other hand, holds that the Judaistic addition involves invalidation. Salvation must rest either upon the promise or upon the law. The Judaiser said, upon the promise and the law. For God gave the inheritance to Abraham by promise. It has been shown that the law did not abrogate the promise. Hence, if the inheritance be of the law it is no more of the promise. Comp. Rom 4:14.

Gave [κεχαρισται] . Freely bestowed as a gracious gift. See on Luk 7:21.

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