Galatians 3:19

The apostle having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he did too much derogate from the law, and render it altogether useless, he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given. It might be asked, "If that promise be sufficient for salvation, wherefore then serveth the law? Or, Why did God give the law by Moses?" To this he answers,

I. The law was added because of transgressions, Gal 3:19. It was not designed to disannul the promise, and to establish a different way of justification from that which was settled by the promise; but it was added to it, annexed on purpose to be subservient to it, and it was so because of transgressions. The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it; for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20), and the law entered that sin might abound, Rom 5:20. And it was also intended to restrain them from the commission of sin, to put an awe upon their minds, and be a curb upon their lusts, that they should not run into that excess of riot to which they were naturally inclined; and yet at the same time it was designed to direct them to the true and only way whereby sin was to be expiated, and wherein they might obtain the pardon of it; namely, through the death and sacrifice of Christ, which was the special use for which the law of sacrifices and purifications was given.

The apostle adds that the law was given for this purpose till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; that is, either till Christ should come (the principle seed referred to in the promise, as he had before shown), or till the gospel dispensation should take place, when Jews and Gentiles, without distinction, should, upon believing, become the seed of Abraham. The law was added because of transgressions, till this fulness of time, or this complete dispensation, should come. But when the seed came, and a fuller discovery of divine grace in the promise was made, then the law, as given by Moses, was to cease; that covenant, being found faulty, was to give place to another, and a better, Heb 8:7, Heb 8:8. And though the law, considered as the law of nature, is always in force, and still continues to be of use to convince men of sin and to restrain them from it, yet we are now no longer under the bondage and terror of that legal covenant. The law then was not intended to discover another way of justification, different from that revealed by the promise, but only to lead men to see their need of the promise, by showing them the sinfulness of sin, and to point them to Christ, through whom alone they could be pardoned and justified.

As a further proof that the law was not designed to vacate the promise, the apostle adds, It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. It was given to different persons, and in a different manner from the promise, and therefore for different purposes. The promise was made to Abraham, and all his spiritual seed, including believers of all nations, even of the Gentiles as well as the Jews; but the law was given to the Israelites as a peculiar people, and separated from the rest of the world. And, whereas the promise was given immediately by God himself, the law was given by the ministry of angels, and the hand of a mediator. Hence it appeared that the law could not be designed to set aside the promise; for (Gal 3:20), A mediator is not a mediator of one, of one party only; but God is one, but one party in the promise or covenant made with Abraham: and therefore it is not to be supposed that by a transaction which passed only between him and the nation of the Jews he should make void a promise which he had long before made to Abraham and all his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles. This would not have been consistent with his wisdom, nor with his truth and faithfulness. Moses was only a mediator between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham; and therefore the law that was given by him could not affect the promise made to them, much less be subversive of it.

II. The law was given to convince men of the necessity of a Saviour. The apostle asks (Gal 3:21), as what some might be willing to object, "Is the law then against the promises of God? Do they really clash and interfere with each other? Or do you not set the covenant with Abraham, and the law of Moses, at variance with one another?" To this he answers, God forbid; he was far from entertaining such a thought, nor could it be inferred from what he had said. The law is by no means inconsistent with the promise, but subservient to it, as the design of it is to discover men's transgressions, and to show them the need they have of a better righteousness than that of the law. That consequence would much rather follow from their doctrine than from his; for, if there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness would have been by the law, and in that case the promise would have been superseded and rendered useless. But that in our present state could not be, for the scripture hath concluded all under sin (Gal 3:22), or declared that all, both Jew and Gentile, are in a state of guilt, and therefore unable to attain to righteousness and justification by the works of the law. The law discovered their wounds, but could not afford them a remedy: it showed that they were guilty, because it appointed sacrifices and purifications, which were manifestly insufficient to take away sin: and therefore the great design of it was that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe, that being convinced of their guilt, and the insufficiency of the law to effect a righteousness for them, they might be persuaded to believe on Christ, and so obtain the benefit of the promise.

III. The law was designed for a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, Gal 3:24. In the foregoing verse, the apostle acquaints us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic economy, that before faith came, or before Christ appeared and the doctrine of justification by faith in him was more fully discovered, they were kept under the law, obliged, under severe penalties, to a strict observance of the various precepts of it; and at that time they were shut up, held under the terror and discipline of it, as prisoners in a state of confinement: the design of this was that hereby they might be disposed more readily to embrace the faith which should afterwards be revealed, or be persuaded to accept Christ when he came into the world, and to fall in with that better dispensation he was to introduce, whereby they were to be freed from bondage and servitude, and brought into a state of greater light and liberty. Now, in that state, he tells them, the law was their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. As it declared the mind and will of God concerning them, and at the same time denounced a curse against them for every failure in their duty, so it was proper to convince them of their lost and undone condition in themselves, and to let them see the weakness and insufficiency of their own righteousness to recommend them to God. And as it obliged them to a variety of sacrifices, etc., which, though they could not of themselves take away sin, were typical of Christ, and of the great sacrifice which he was to offer up for the expiation of it, so it directed them (though in a more dark and obscure manner) to him as their only relief and refuge. And thus it was their schoolmaster, to instruct and govern them in their state of minority, or, as the word paidagōgos most properly signifies, their servant, to lead and conduct them to Christ (as children were wont to be led to school by those servants who had the care of them); that they might be more fully instructed by him as their schoolmaster, in the true way of justification and salvation, which is only by faith in him, and of which he was appointed to give the fullest and clearest discoveries. But lest it should be said, If the law was of this use and service under the Jewish, why may it not continue to be so under the Christian state too, the apostle adds (Gal 3:25) that after faith has come, and the gospel dispensation has taken place, under which Christ, and the way of pardon and life through faith in him, are set in the clearest light, we are no longer under a schoolmaster - we have no such need of the law to direct us to him as there was then. Thus the apostle acquaints us for what uses and purposes the law served; and, from what he says concerning this matter, we may observe,

1. The goodness of God to his people of old, in giving the law to them; for though, in comparison of the gospel state, it was a dispensation of darkness and terror, yet it furnished them with sufficient means and helps both to direct them in their duty to God and to encourage their hopes in him.

2. The great fault and folly of the Jews, in mistaking the design of the law, and abusing it to a very different purpose from that which God intended in the giving of it; for they expected to be justified by the works of it, whereas it was never designed to be the rule of their justification, but only a means of convincing them of their guilt and of their need of a Saviour, and of directing them to Christ, and faith in him, as the only way of obtaining this privilege. See Rom 9:31, Rom 9:32; Rom 10:3, Rom 10:4.

3. The great advantage of the gospel state above the legal, under which we not only enjoy a clearer discovery of divine grace and mercy than was afforded to the Jews of old, but are also freed from the state of bondage and terror under which they were held. We are not now treated as children in a state of minority, but as sons grown up to a full age, who are admitted to greater freedoms, and instated in larger privileges, than they were. This the apostle enlarges upon in the following verses. For, having shown for what intent the law was given, in the close of the chapter he acquaints us with our privilege by Christ, where he particularly declares,

(1.) That we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:26. And here we may observe, [1.] The great and excellent privilege which real Christians enjoy under the gospel: They are the children of God; they are no longer accounted servants, but sons; they are not now kept at such a distance, and under such restraints, as the Jews were, but are allowed a nearer and freer access to God than was granted to them; yea, they are admitted into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of his children. [2.] How they come to obtain this privilege, and that is by faith in Christ Jesus. Having accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they are hereupon admitted into this happy relation to God, and are entitled to the privileges of it; for (Joh 1:12) as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his name. And this faith in Christ, whereby they became the children of God, he reminds us (Gal 3:27), was what they professed in baptism; for he adds, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Having in baptism professed their faith in him, they were thereby devoted to him, and had, as it were, put on his livery, and declared themselves to be his servants and disciples; and having thus become the members of Christ, they were through him owned and accounted as the children of God. Here note, First, Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church, as circumcision was into that of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus appointed it to be so, in the commission he gave to his apostles (Mat 28:19), and accordingly it was their practice to baptize those whom they had discipled to the Christian faith; and perhaps the apostle might take notice of their baptism here, and of their becoming the children of God through faith in Christ, professed therein, to obviate a further objection, which the false teachers might be apt to urge in favour of circumcision. They might be ready to say, "Though it should be allowed that the law, as given at mount Sinai, was abrogated by the coming of Christ the promised seed, yet why should circumcision be set aside too, when that was given to Abraham together with the promise, and long before the giving of the law by Moses?" But this difficulty is sufficiently removed when the apostle says, Those who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ; for thence it appears that under the gospel baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and that those who by baptism are devoted to Christ, and do sincerely believe in him, are to all intents and purposes as much admitted into the privileges of the Christian state as the Jews were by circumcision into those of the legal (Phi 3:3), and therefore there was no reason why the use of that should still be continued. Note, Secondly, In our baptism we put on Christ; therein we profess our discipleship to him, and are obliged to behave ourselves as his faithful servants. Being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, that as he died and rose again, so, in conformity thereunto, we should die unto sin, and walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4); it would be of great advantage to us did we oftener remember this.

(2.) That this privilege of being the children of God, and of being by baptism devoted to Christ, is now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, giving the Jews on many accounts the pre-eminence: that also made a difference between bond and free, master and servant, and between male and female, the males being circumcised. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus; as the one is not accepted on the account of any national or personal advantages he may enjoy above the other, so neither is the other rejected for the want of them; but all who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex, or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him.

(3.) That, being Christ's, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Their judaizing teachers would have them believe that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved: "No," says the apostle, "there is no need of that; for if you be Christ's, if you sincerely believe on him, who is the promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, you therefore become the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful, and as such are heirs according to the promise, and consequently are entitled to the great blessings and privileges of it." And therefore upon the whole, since it appeared that justification was not to be attained by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ, and that the law of Moses was a temporary institution and was given for such purposes as were only subservient to and not subversive of the promise, and that now, under the gospel, Christians enjoy much greater and better privileges than the Jews did under that dispensation, it must needs follow that they were very unreasonable and unwise, in hearkening to those who at once endeavoured to deprive them of the truth and liberty of the gospel.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal_3:19

Wherefore then serveth the law?

It was added because of trasgressions.

The function of the law

Of what use, then, is the law, if (as you assert) it is not simply a codicil to--a substitute for--Gods promise to Abraham? It was added. Not being a part of the original scheme, but made necessary on account of the hardness of mens hearts, it came in as a sort of marginal addition or parenthesis in the dealings of God with the Jews. The moral atmosphere was changed. In circumstances of amity the promise had been given, God speaking to Abraham as a man with his friend; in circumstances of discord, with suitable accompaniment of hailstones and coals of fire, the law was promulgated and enforced. The function of the law was to assist as an ally: to be subsidiary to the promise, and help towards its fulfilment. This it did by revealing mens deeds to them in their true light--showing them their own sinfulness in the sight of God, and their own inability to do anything towards mending matters--a necessary preliminary to their attainment of that faith which would lead them to embrace the promise. The law, again, was merely a temporary, enactment; its work would be done when He Should appear to whom the promise had been made. Still further: the provisional nature of the law may be perceived, if we consider the manner of its promulgation. It was ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. Direct had been Gods communication with Abraham when He gave the promise; but at the giving of the law He delivered His decrees to angels, and the angels entrusted them to a second intermediate agent, viz., Moses. Now the existence of a mediator (or go-between) implies duality, separation, disunion; whereas a promise is a simple direct transaction requiring no such intervention. If there had not been discord, at the time of the giving of the law, a mediator would have been out of place; he would have had no business there at all. There was discord at that time; and for that reason Moses was appointed to mediate. But this, instead of proving that the law is antagonistic to the promise, proves exactly the contrary, for--God is one. If the law had been intended to annul the promise, it would necessarily follow that God had changed His mind, His dealings with the children of Israel through Moses would contradict His dealings four hundred and thirty years before with Abraham. Such a thought cannot for a moment be tolerated. The Lord our God is one Lord; with Him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. He is ever one and the same; and the eternal principles upon which He acts can never alter. However different and opposed to one another His various dispensations towards mankind may at first sight appear, a secret thread of harmony runs through them all. His unity of purpose is expressed from first to last, in unity of plan. He will justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision by the same faith--in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was made. Now it is easy to see in what sort of relation the law stands to the promise. The work of the law is a work of discipline. It presents to view the sterner side of the Divine character; it shows God frowning at sin, and holding aloof from the sinner; it teaches man that by no effort of his own can he regain that communion with his Maker which was forfeited at the fall. But if that communion is not regained, man is lost--hopelessly lost for ever. Is there no other means of recovering the forfeited possession, and of once more enjoying the privilege of basking in the light of the Divine countenance? Yes, there is; and surely the law has been a most useful and valuable institution, if it has led men to ask that question. The promise, given hundreds of years before the law, still remains in force. Nothing can abrogate it--seeing that God is one and the same both in essence and in will. If in the time of Abraham He was willing to justify by faith, He is willing to justify by faith now, and He will continue in the same mind to the end of time and throughout eternity. Thus is the law our pedagogue, taking us by the hand, and leading us back over rough and devious paths to that earlier promise which was made to Christ the true seed of Abraham, and, in Christ, to all who believe. (J. Henry Burn, B. D.)

The law

I. Its purpose.

1. To reveal sin.

2. To convict of sin.

3. To warn respecting its punishment.

Consequently we should examine ourselves by the law.

(1) When any one sin is forbidden, all sins of the same kind are forbidden.

(2) A negative commandment includes the affirmative.

(3) Every command must be understood with a curse.

(4) Look particularly to the first commandment, which forbids the first motions of our heart against God; and to the last, which forbids the first motions of our heart against man.

II. Its duration.

1. Particularly: till Christ should come in the case of the Jews.

2. Generally: till God has revealed His Son in us, before which the law, although abrogated as a dispensation, has still a condemning power.

III. The method of its promulgation.

1. Guilty man could not have received it direct.

2. It was therefore given

(1) by angels (Deu_33:2; Psa_68:17; Act_7:53).

(a) They were attendants on God at the time of its delivery.

(b) They were witnesses and approvers of its delivery.

(c) Perhaps its commands were uttered by angels (Heb_2:2).

(2) By the instrumentality of Moses (Deu_5:5).

3. Learn then

(1) to reverence it,

(2) to fear to break it,

(3) to repent of breaking it,

(4) to look for shame and confusion in the case of impenitence in the presence of God and the angels. (W. Perkins.)

The present use of the law

I. To the unconverted.

1. To restrain and limit transgression.

2. To bring to light transgressions.

3. To convince of transgression.

4. To prepare men to seek and receive the mercy of God in Christ.

II. To the justified.

1. It is a rule by which they are to be governed.

2. It serves to warn and guard them against the commission of sin.

3. To make them grateful for the privileges they enjoy.

4. To keep them in close dependence on Jesus.

In conclusion: the final judgment must be administered in accordance with the provisions of the law. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)

I. The law was like a torch carried into the dark crevices and cellars of human nature that it might reveal the foul shapes that lurked there, and rouse man to long for a righteousness which it could not itself confer.

II. In the process of doing this, the law aggravated the very evil it brought to light: the presence of a Divine rule which forbade the indulgence of human passion had the effect of irritating those passions into new self-asserting activity (Rom_7:7). In the absence of the law, the sinful tendency had been inert, but when the commandment came sin revived and I died.

III. Not that the law was answerable for this result. In itself it was holy, just, and good; the cause lay in the sinful tendency of fallen human nature.

IV. So the law inflicted on the conscience that was not fatally benumbed an overwhelming conviction that righteousness in the way of legal obedience was a thing impossible; and was very far from furnishing a man with a real righteousness, of making him what he should be, correspondent to the true ideal.

V. This conviction prepared men for a righteousness which should not be the product of human efforts, but a gift from heaven; a righteousness to be attained by the adhesion of faith to the perfect Moral Being, Jesus Christ, so that the believers life becomes incorporate with His, and man becomes such as he should be, viz., justified by faith. (Canon Liddon.)

The revealing power of the law

The law acts as a surgeon does when he takes the film from the eye of the blind. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The restraining power of the law

A steam-engine at work in a manufactory is so quiet and gentle that a child might put it back. But interpose a bar of iron, and it cuts through as though it were so much leather. Introduce a human limb--it whirls round, and the form of man is in one moment a bleeding, mangled, shapeless mass. Now, observe, it is the restraint that manifests the unsuspected power. In the same way law discovers the strength of evil in our hearts. Not till a man has felt something resisting the evil does he know its force. (F. W. Robertson.)

Law

I. To prepare the way for the gospel.

II. To constitute a period of probation.

III. To bring us to Christ (Gal_3:24).

IV. To guide us in the path of holiness.

V. To vindicate the justice of God in the punishment of sinners. (J. Lyth.)

Christ our Mediator

As, when a king is angry with a subject, the kings son marries the daughter of the subject, and brings him into favour with the king again: so, when God the Father was angry with us, Christ married Himself to our nature, and now mediates for us with His Father, and brings us to be friends again; and now God looks upon us with a favourable aspect. As Joab pleaded for Absalom, and brought Him to King David, and David kissed Him; so doth Jesus Christ ingratiate us into the love and favour of God. Therefore He may well be called a peacemaker, having taken our flesh upon Him, and so made peace between us and His angry Father. (T. Watson.)

During one of the journeys of Queen Victoria, a little boy was desirous of seeing her. He determined to go direct to the castle where she was residing, and ask to see her. He was stopped at the gate by the sentry, who demanded what he wanted. I want to see the queen, he replied. The soldier laughed at the boy, and with the butt-end of his musket pushed him away, and told him to be off immediately, or he would shoot him. The boy turned to go away, and gave vent to his grief in tears. He had not gone far when he was met by the Prince of Wales, who inquired why he was crying. I want to see the queen, replied the boy, and that soldier wont let me.--Wont he? said the prince: then come along with me, and Ill take you to the queen. He accordingly took him by the hand, and led him towards the castle. On passing the sentinel, he, as usual, presented arms to the prince; and the boy became terrified, and ran away, fearing that the soldier was going to shoot him. The prince soon quieted his fears, and led him past the gates into the presence of her Majesty. The queen with surprise, inquired of her son whom he had there; and, upon being informed of what had taken place, she laughed heartily, spoke kindly to her little visitor, and to his great delight dismissed him with a piece of money. As the prince presented the boy to the queen, so Christ presents us to His Father. (T. Watson.)

The use of the law is

I. Moral--it was brought in to detect--expose--restrain--punish transgression.

II. Preparatory--it prepared the way for the gospel, developing human weakness--pointing to Christ its substance and antitype.

III. Divinely ordained--by angels (Deu_33:2; Heb_2:2)--in the hand of a mediator, Moses.

IV. Temporary--because mediatorial (see Gal_3:15-22, also Lisco, in loco)--but the promise is everlasting, for God is one.

V. Harmonious with the gospel--it does not propose to communicate righteousness and life--but concludes all under sin.

VI. Conducive to faith--by convincing men of sin--excluding all other hope--shutting them up to the faith of Christ--in whom the promise is given. (J. Lyth.)

The nature of the law

I. In the first place, I will endeavour to define what is meant by the law of God is the abstract. The simple sense of the term law, and the most general sense, is this--it is that mode by which an agent proceeds. The mode by which the government of a country proceeds to rule its subjects, is called the law of that government. The term will be found to have the same signification when applied to the very highest class of objects--I mean, the government of God: the constant procedure of the Divine will, with respect to any object in any part of His dominions, is called the law of God, in respect of that particular object. While we are upon the nature of the law, let it be observed, chat these modes by which the Divine Being governs either the moral or the natural world, are not merely arbitrary regulations imposed upon its objects solely with a design to exercise His authority; but, that they are the necessary perceptions of the Divine mind, as to what is proper or benevolent, in regard to each of the objects to which they relate. Whence it follows, that the law of God, in relation to any class of beings in His government (but, in relation to man, pre-eminently) is the result of infinite wisdom and infinite goodness, the Lawgiver Himself being infinitely wise and good. One more remark may be added, which is, that the law of God, being the transcript of His own benevolence and wisdom, proposes and accomplishes the best possible results; promotes happiness to the utmost extent of which the object may be capable. This law may be expressed and promulgated by different modes. God has impressed His laws upon all nature below man. He did not render the obedience of man a matter of mechanical certainty; but the result of free choice.

II. This leads me, secondly, to consider the modes whereby God hath promulgated His laws. These are two. He wrote the law originally upon the mind of Adam in the garden of Eden; and when it was effaced in a great measure by his apostasy, and almost obliterated from the mind of man, through the love of sin, he republished it to the world in the form of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai.

III. Thirdly, to remark on the different kinds of the law, which we must distinguish in perusing the Holy Scriptures. Although all that was republished on Sinai to the Jews, and at all other times, goes under the general term of the law of God; yet, upon close inspection, this law will be found to consist of three kinds, which are clearly distinct from one another. These three kinds of law are, the judicial law, or the state law of the Jews; the ceremonial law, that is to say, that law which prescribed the religious rites and services of the Jews under the Old Testament dispensation; and the moral law, which prescribed their conduct, and our conduct, as men. It has been inferred that the moral law was intended to be perpetual from the very mode of its promulgation. Let not this be dismissed as trifling. Everything in the promulgation of the law was the effect of premeditation on the part of the Divine mind, who doeth nothing in vain. Every part of it had a signification attached to it. The judicial part of the law, and the ceremonial part, were delivered to Moses privately, during the forty days in which he was on the Mount; but the moral law was delivered from the mouth of God Himself, in the presence of the whole assembled camp. The ceremonial part of the law was written in a perishable book; the moral part of the law was written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone, the emblem of perpetuity; and after wards, when the first tables of the law were destroyed by the zeal of Moses, they were restored by the same finger upon two other similar tables. Now, we must be persuaded that every particular in that solemn event of giving the law was the result of design: and that the moral part of the law was intended to be perpetual, seems the most probable meaning of the distinction made in the mode of promulgating the ceremonial and the moral law. But we have conclusive argument to prove the universal obligation and perpetuity of the law. That it is intended to be universal is most evident, because it was only the republication of the law which was imprinted on the mind of Adam in Eden, and which was effaced from his mind by his disobedience. But, as Adam was the head and father of all, and as all that had been prescribed to him first was intended to be taught to all his posterity, we infer that the moral law was intended to be perpetual and universally binding. Again, it is one great requisition of the gospel, that it should be preached to every creature; and that its object should be to testify toward Jews and Greeks, repentance toward God. But, if repentance be required of every creature, it follows that every creature is a sinner. Yet, every creature cannot be a sinner by disobedience to the judicial law, which was only for the Jews as a nation, nor by disobedience to the ceremonial law, which was to cease at Christs coming. But, by the disobedience of law, mankind became sinners, and consequently, the subject of the gospel must be the moral law; therefore, the moral law is universal. The precepts of the moral law have all of them respect only to the moral character of man, properly so called. They relate not to outward observances--not to the things which go into a man, but to the things which come out of him, namely, the thoughts and intents of his heart. Our Lord said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This could not be the judicial law, which was to cease with the existence of the Jews as a nation. It could not mean the ceremonial law, which was done away by Christ. This declaration refers to the moral law, and there is ample reason for believing that his assertion should be true. (J. P. Denham, M. A.)

Jesus Christ the true and only Mediator between God and man

St. Paul commences his explanation of the use of the law of Moses, by saying that it was added because of transgressions. It was added, therefore was not, so to speak, included in the original purpose of God--because of transgressions, not that the law made transgression, but that it was a test whereby transgression might be--

1. Manifested and exposed;

2. Avoided and corrected.

Thus we find the use of the law to have consisted in being a witness to God between the patriarchal and the Christian dispensations. It was meant to be a standard of Gods righteousness, and thus a means of convincing man of his own unrighteousness. It would appear, then, that the one great object the apostle had in view in this Epistle to the Galatians was to shew the temporary character of the law, and that it only filled a sphere of subordinate usefulness in the economy of the Divine government; and so, by lowering their ideas of its dignity, to exalt their impressions of the higher dignity of evangelical truth, and of the greater necessity of faith in the evangelical promises. And this object we find wrought out in the text, wherein he shows its fleeting character in the assertion that it was only added until the seed should come. The word angels is capable of two interpretations.

1. The word translated angels, and from which our English word angel is derived, in its simple sense means messengers. It does not mean necessarily that spiritual and (to us) invisible messenger which we call an angel, but may mean any one entrusted with the performance of anothers will, or the execution of a commission. Thus we may take the law in its fullest sense, comprehending the moral as well as the ritual observances enjoined by God, and revealed by Him at various times through patriarchs, lawgivers, prophets, and ready scribes (like Ezra); and suppose these to have been the messengers by whom it was ordained; or (more literally) set in order, until the time of the Mediator arrived, when all the ordinances alike of ceremonial and moral law were realized in Him, even Jesus Christ, who fulfilled all righteousness.

2. But I confess that this interpretation, however satisfactory it may appear in itself as explanatory of the meaning of the apostles words, does not appear to me to elucidate the sense of the apostle upon the point in question. I prefer, therefore, to abide by the second interpretation, which, while it narrows its signification, applies more closely and explains more satisfactorily its meaning. St. Paul, you will bear in mind, was still dwelling on the temporary character of the law. This was the key-note of the whole chant in praise of the superiority of faith. He appears, therefore, in this expression to make a distinct allusion to the giving of the law to Moses, the mediator between God and His people Israel after the patriarchal times had ceased. I conceive hence that the law alluded to in the text was the ceremonial law ordained, or set in order by angelic ministers and conveyed to Moses in the Mount, when for forty days he was permitted to commune with Jehovah, and entrusted to his hands as the mediator appointed by God to convey His will to His chosen people Israel. Now, if, as I believe, this be a correct explanation of the meaning of the apostle, we shall find, on carrying out the idea contained therein, that it has a very important connection with the following portion of the text, Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. This connection may not at first appear so clear as I hope to make it; but, if I understand the apostles argument, his meaning was to this effect: I have shown you the real use of the law, have explained that it was not Gods original covenant, but was only intended to fill up a gap, as it were, between the declaration and the fulfilment of the antecedent promise; that during that gap or interval, it was useful in convincing of sin, and thus leading to a necessity of faith, but had in itself no justifying power like the faith already illustrated in Abraham when he believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now, I have a still farther object in view: I wish to prove its inferiority, both in the mode of its revelation and in the person of its mediator. He wished, I say, to prove the inferiority of the ritual law. First: in the mode of its revelation. The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. How far superior then must have been that promise which came direct from God Himself. The law was calculated to depress the thoughts to earth by its carnal rites and burthensome observances. How far superior, then, must have been that promise which elevated the thoughts, hopes, affections at once to the throne and mercy seat of God. The law was intended only to have a typical efficacy by shadowing forth good things yet to come. How far superior then in their fulfilment must have been those abiding realities, those spiritual substances which were thus foreshadowed. Second: In the person of its Mediator. The mediator of the covenant of the law was Moses, the servant of God, but the Mediator of the covenant of promise was Jesus the Son of God, and that we may duly appreciate the special, the specific superiority, in this character of the latter over the former, let us consider what was the office of, and what was the necessary qualification for a mediator. A mediator is one who seeks to reconcile differences between conflicting persons. In order to do this successfully between man and man, he must be utterly unbiassed by the prejudices of either, while he must feel a sympathy with the affections of both. In the arrangement of human differences we know by experience that if a person attempts to mediate between two, while all his sympathies are enlisted on the side of one, his office is sure to fail, even if his mediation be not rejected. Therefore, when the apostle says, A mediator is not a mediator of one, he at once shows the inefficiency of Moses for his office; because, being only man, he could not mediate on the side of Deity. He could convey Gods commands to His people. He could even act out Gods will in his own person. But not being a partaker of the Divine nature, he could not mediate as a Divine participator in the covenant. But contrast this with the Mediator of the covenant of promise, and regard His immeasurable superiority. Behold the development of the mystery contained in the concluding words of the text, But God is one! But while thus congratulating ourselves upon an undeserved, and I trust richly appreciated mercy, it is necessary heedfully to avoid one dangerous error--viz., not to degrade our faith into a mere result of external evidences. The mind and intellect being convinced will not always influence the conduct, will certainly fail to change the heart, and cannot of itself sanctify the will. Holy Scripture tells us that it is with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. (Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham.)

Law contrasted with promise

1. The law has no organic relation to the promise; was neither a new form of it, nor a codicil to it; did not spring out of it, but was superadded as a foreign and unallied element.

2. The law has functional connection with sin; the promise regards an inheritance.

3. The law was provisional and temporary only: the promise has no limitation of time, and is not to be superseded.

4. The law was given by a species of double intervention--the instrumentality of angels and the mediation of Moses; the promise was given directly and immediately from Gods own lips, no one stepping in between its Giver and its recipient--neither angel ordaining it nor man conveying it.

5. The promise, as resting solely on God, was unconditioned, and therefore permanent and unchanging; the law, interposed between two parties, and specially contingent on a human element, was liable to suspension or abolition.

6. This law, so necessitated by sin, so transient, so connected with angelic ordinance and human handling, was an institute later also by far in its imagination. (John Eadie, D. D.)

Inferiority of the law to the dispensation of grace

Had the law then no purpose? Yes; but its very purpose, its character and history, betray its inferiority to the dispensation of grace.

1. Instead of justifying, it condemns; instead of giving life, it kills; it was added to reveal and multiply, transgressions.

2. It was but temporary; when the seed came to whom the promise was given, it was annulled.

3. It did not come direct from God to man. There was a double interposition, a twofold mediation, between the giver and the recipient. There were the angels, who administered it as Gods instruments; there was Moses (or the high priest) who delivered it to man.

4. As follows from the idea of mediation, it was of the nature of a contract, whereas the promise, proceeding from the sole fiat of God, is unconditional and unchangeable, (Bishop Lightfoot.)

The uses of the law

The law was never intended to be the means of conveying life. Its office was to bring home to men the necessity of seeking life elsewhere. It was subservient and preparatory to the gospel. The general reason for which it was given was because of transgressions.

1. To restrain sin. As a curb. It holds men in check wherever it is known. Without some such restraint this earth would soon become a hell.

2. To reveal sin (Rom_7:7-9). The sediment at the bottom of a pool is there, but its existence does not become apparent until the pool is stirred. The chamber may be full of all that is unseemly and unsightly, but the fact is not known so long as darkness prevails. So the law lets in the light of Gods truth upon mans evil heart.

3. To provoke sin (Rom_5:20). The very fact that fruit is forbidden makes it to be more desired. The heart chafes at restraint. Just as a barrier thrown across a stream causes it, however smooth and quiet before, to rage and fret against the new obstruction, if perchance it may sweep it away; so does the law, with its demands, warnings, threatenings, stir up the enmity of the heart, and provoke it to rebel against God.

4. To condemn sin. the law, when it has once found a man, holds him fast in its grip. It has but two sentences--death or life. It reveals to man his own helpless misery, and leaves him in it. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)

The purposes the law was intended to serve

Take a birds-eye view of the works of the law in this world. Lo, I see the law given upon Mount Sinai. The very hill doth quake with fear. Lightnings and thunders are the attendants of those dreadful syllables which make the hearts of Israel to melt. Sinai seemeth altogether on the smoke. The Lord came from Paran, and the Holy One from Mount Sinai; He came with ten thousand of His saints. Out of His mouth went a fiery law for them. It was a dread law even when it was given; and since then from that Mount of Sinai an awful lava of vengeance has run down, to deluge, to destroy, to burn, and to consume the whole human race, if it had not been that Jesus Christ had stemmed its awful torrent, and bidden its waves of fire be still. Apart from Christ and His gospel, the law is nothing but the condemning voice of God thundering against mankind. So it is natural to ask the question in the text; and the answer to that question is--

1. To manifest to man his guilt. Asleep on the edge of the precipice, God sends the law as a messenger to open mens eyes and show them their danger.

2. To slay all hope of salvation by a reformed life. Future obedience can be no atonement for past guilt, even if perfect obedience for the future could be guaranteed, which is far from the case.

3. To show man the misery which will fall upon him through his sin.

4. To show the value of a Saviour. As foils set off jewels, and dark spots make bright tints more bright, so does the law make Christ appear the fairer and more heavenly. How harsh and discordant is the voice of the law with its cure; how sweet and harmonious that of Jesus, saying, Come unto Me.

5. To keep Christian men from self-righteousness. When we read the law we see our faults as in a mirror. If we would be saved, we must come with nothing of our own to Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Because of transgressions:--

Relation of the law to sin

The transgressions on account of which the law was added refer, I apprehend, to the criminal conduct of the Israelites, which rendered the introduction of such a system as the law necessary in order to the attainment of the great object of the covenant about Christ, and justification by faith through Him. This arrangement was first made known in the first promise, but from the prevalence of human depravity it seems to have been in the course of ages almost entirely forgotten. All flesh corrupted its way on the earth. The deluge swept away the whole inhabitants of the ancient world with the exception of one family, among whom the true religion was preserved. In the course of no very long period, the great body of their descendants, the inhabitants of the new world, became idolaters. To prevent the utter extinction from among mankind of the knowledge of God, and the way of obtaining His favour, Abraham was called, and a plainer revelation made to him of the Divine purposes of mercy, and his decendants by Isaac and Jacob chosen as the depositaries of this revelation, till He should come to whom the revelation chiefly referred. In consequence of the descendants of Jacob coming down into Egypt, they gradually contracted a fondness for Egyptian superstitions, and were fast relapsing into a state of idolatry, which must soon have terminated in their being lost among the nations; and the revelation with which they were entrusted being first corrupted and then forgotten, God raised up Moses as their deliverer, brought them out of Egypt, and placed them under that very peculiar order of things which we commonly term the Mosaic Law--an order of things admirably adapted to preserve them a distinct and peculiar people--and by doing so, to preserve the revelation of mercy through the Messiah, of which they were the depositaries, and to prepare abundant and satisfactory stores of evidence and illustration when the great Deliverer appeared--evidence that He was indeed the Person to whom the hopes of mankind had from the beginning been directed, an illustration rendering in some measure level to human apprehension what otherwise would have been unintelligible. Every person acquainted with the principles of depraved human nature, and with the history of the Jews at and subsequent to their deliverance from Egypt, will see that their transgressions rendered some such arrangement as the Mosaic law absolutely necessary, on the supposition that the Messiah was not to appear for a course of ages, and that the revelation of salvation through Him was to be preserved in the world by means of the Jewish people. We are not so much, if at all, to consider the Mosaic law as a punishment for the transgressions of the descendants of Abraham. We are rather to consider it as the means which their transgressions rendered necessary in order to secure the object of their being chosen to be Gods peculiar people. To be preserved from being involved in the ignorance, and idolatry, and vice in which the surrounding nations were sunk, was a blessing, at whatever expense it might be gained. At the same time, had it not been for the transgressions of the Israelites, the more spiritual and less burdensome order of things under which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were placed might have been continued, and the law as a distinct order of things never have existed because never needed. (John Brown, D. D.)

The law, then, was given for these two purposes

1. To show the people what actions were sins, that they might not fall into them without knowledge and without warning.

2. To restrain them from those sins against the law of nature and the covenant with God, through fear of the punishment which should follow, and thus root out from them those habits of wickedness which they had contracted in Egypt. In both these respects was the necessity of a mediator, a redeemer, kept before the eyes of the people. Their weakness taught them the need of a Saviour, who should strengthen them; the sight of their sinfulness directed them to a Redeemer, through whom they should obtain deliverance from present sin and forgiveness for the past. For the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners; and therefore, since the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The inferiority of the law to the covenant of promise which was fulfilled by the gospel is considered in these particulars.

1. The law represses outward transgressions through the fear which it excites; the gospel effects an inward transformation in man by love.

2. Instead of justifying, which is the work of the gospel, the law condemns; instead of giving life, it does but kill.

3. The law was temporary; it was only to continue until the coming of the seed.

4. The law did not come to man directly from the mouth of God as the gospel does, but by the intervention of angels. Until Christ came, man indeed was not brought face to face with God, but the will of the Father was revealed to the world by the ministry of angels. Only in these last days hath He spoken unto us by His Son. The law depended for its fulfilment on the observance of its conditions by the two contracting parties, whilst the promise of God to Abraham is absolute. (W. Denton, M. A.)

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

Gal 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law — If the inheritance was not by the law, but by the promise, as a free gift, for what purpose was the law given, or what significancy had it? It was added because of transgressions — That is, to restrain the Israelites from transgressions, particularly idolatry, and the vices connected with idolatry, the evil of which the law discovered to them by its prohibitions and curse. Agreeably to this account of the law, idolatry, and all the abominations practised by the Canaanites, and the other heathen nations who surrounded the Israelites, were forbidden in the law under the severest penalties. Maimonides, a learned Jew, acknowledges, in his More-Nevochim, that the ceremonial law was given for the extirpation of idolatry; for, saith he, “When God sent Moses to redeem his people out of Egypt, it was the usual custom of the world, and the worship in which all nations were bred up, to build temples in honour of the sun, moon, and stars, and to offer divers kinds of animals to them, and to have priests appointed for that end. Therefore God, knowing it is beyond the strength of human nature instantly to quit that which it hath been long accustomed to, and so is powerfully inclined to, would not command that all that kind of worship should be abolished, and that he should be worshipped only in spirit; but required that he only should be the object of this outward worship; that temples and altars should be built to him alone; sacrifices offered to him only, and priests consecrated to his service.” So Cedrenus, of their festivals, separations, purgations, oblations, &c., observing, God enjoined them, that, being employed in doing these things to the true God, they might abstain from idolatry. And thus, saith Dr. Spencer, were they kept under the discipline of the law, and shut up from the idolatrous rites and customs of the heathen world, by the strictness of these legal observances, and the penalties denounced against the violators of them. “And it is well-known,” says Whitby, “that all the ancient fathers were of this opinion, that God gave the Jews only the decalogue, till they had made the golden calf; and that afterward he laid this yoke of ceremonies upon them to restrain them from idolatry, (see Eze 20:7; Eze 20:11; Eze 20:24-25,) called by the apostle the law of carnal commandments, which he says, was abolished for the weakness and unprofitableness of it, Heb 7:16. Hence these ceremonies were called by St. Paul, στοιχεια του κοσμου, the rudiments of the world, Gal 4:3; Col 2:8; namely, because for matter they were the same which the heathen used before to their false gods. But this ancient exposition, though partly true, does not contain the whole truth; for the apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, informs us, that the law entered that sin might abound; that is, might appear to abound, unto death, that sin might appear sin, working death in, us, Rom 5:20; Rom 7:13. And that the law worketh wrath, namely, by giving us the knowledge of that sin which deserves it, Rom 3:20; Rom 4:15. And this answers to what the apostle here saith, that the law was added because of transgressions, namely, to discover them, and the punishment due to them. See on Gal 3:22; Gal 3:24. So also Macknight: “The law was added after the promise, to show the Israelites what things were offensive to God, Rom 3:20. Also, that by the manner in which it was given, becoming sensible of their transgressions, and of God’s displeasure with them for their transgressions, and of the punishment to which they were liable, they might be constrained to have recourse to the covenant with Abraham, in which justification was promised through faith, as it is now promised in the gospel. See Col 2:14.” Till the seed should come — That illustrious seed, the Messiah; to whom the promise was made — “It was not fit that the law of Moses, which condemned every sinner to death, should continue any longer than till the seed should come to whom it was promised that in him all nations should be blessed, by having their faith counted for righteousness. For Christ having come, and published in his gospel God’s gracious intention of justifying believers of all nations by faith, if the law of Moses, which condemned every sinner to death without mercy, had been allowed to remain, it would have contradicted the gospel, and have made the promise of no effect. It was, therefore, abrogated with great propriety at the death of Christ; especially as the gospel was a dispensation of religion more effectual than the law for destroying idolatry, and restraining transgression.” And was ordained — Greek, διαταγεις, appointed, promulgated, or spoken, as it is expressed Heb 2:2. This is affirmed likewise by Stephen, Act 7:38; Act 7:53. In the hand of a mediator — Namely, Moses, then appointed by God to act the part of a mediator between him and the people of Israel. The law was not given to Israel, as the promise was to Abraham, immediately from God himself, but was conveyed by the ministry of angels to Moses, and delivered into his hand as a mediator between God and them, and as a type of the great Mediator.

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

4. Real purpose of the law—namely, to advance us to Christ and blessedness, Gal_3:19-29.

If the Abrahamic promise is thus prior and superior to the Mosaic law what are the position, value, and purpose of the law? It met, exposed, and punished transgression during the interim between the giving of the promise and the coming of Messiah. The Galatians must, therefore, understand that the Mosaic legislation was but a temporary and subordinate expedient. To leave the older Abrahamic-Messianic promise, and fall back to law, is, therefore, an apostasy.

19. Because of transgressions—”How is this to be interpreted? Is it to check transgression? or is it rather to create transgression? for ‘where no law is, there is no transgression.’ Rom_4:15. Thus law reveals, (Rom_3:20,) provokes, (Rom_7:7; Rom_7:13,) multiplies, (Rom_5:20,) sin or transgression.”—Lightfoot. Undoubtedly all these meanings; for in all, the law fails to give life to those who do not keep it.

The Seed—The Messiah. Note, Gal_3:16.

To whom the promise was made—The promise was addressed to Abraham, and made to him subordinately; but it was made to the Seed, the Redeemer, in the divine purpose, and supremely.

Ordained by angels—See note on Act_7:53.

Mediator—Moses.

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

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Gal_3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?—As it is of no avail for justification, is it either useless or contrary to the covenant of God? It was added because of transgressions.—To bring out into clearer view the transgressions of the law; to make men more fully conscious of their sins, by being perceived as transgressions of the law, and so make them long for the promised Saviour. It was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.—As instrumental enactors of the law. In the giving of the law the angels were representatives of God; Moses, as mediator, represented the people.

Gal_3:20. Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.—The very idea of mediation supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two parties—God on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The Giver is everything, the recipient nothing (Lightfoot).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gal_3:19-20

The Inferiority of the Law.

I. It did not justify but condemn the sinner by revealing his sin.—“It was added because of transgressions” (Gal_3:19). Law has no remedial efficacy. It reveals and emphasises the fact of sin. It has no terror while it is obeyed. When it is violated then it thunders, and with pitiless severity terrifies the conscience and inflicts unsparing punishment. There is no strain of mercy in its voice, or in the inflexibility of its methods. It surrenders the condemned to an anguish from which it offers no means of escape. It is said that, after the murder of Darnley, some of the wretches who were concerned in it were found wandering about the streets of Edinburgh crying penitently and lamentably for vengeance on those who had caused them to shed innocent blood.

II. It was temporary in its operation.—“Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal_3:19). The work of the law was preparatory and educative. Centuries rolled away and the promised Seed was long in coming, and it seemed as if the world must remain for ever under the tutelage of the law. All the time the law was doing its work. God was long in fulfilling His promise because man was so slow to learn. When Christ, the promised Seed, appeared, the law was superseded. Its work was done. The preparatory gave place to the permanent; the reign of law was displaced by the reign of grace. The claims of the law were discharged once for all.

III. Its revelation was through intermediaries.—“It was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator” (Gal_3:19). In the Jewish estimation the administration of the law by angels enhanced its splendour, and the pomp and ceremony with which Moses made known the will and character of Jehovah added to the impressiveness and superiority of the law. In the Christian view these very methods were evidences of defect and inferiority. The revelations of God by the law were veiled and intermediate; the revelation by grace is direct and immediate. Under the law God was a distant and obscured personality, and the people unfit to enter His sacred presence; by the gospel God is brought near to man, and permitted to bask in the radiance of His revealed glory, without the intervention of a human mediator. The law, with its elaborate ceremonial and multiplied exactions, is a barrier between the soul and God.

IV. It was contingent, not absolute, in its primal terms.—“Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one” (Gal_3:20). Where a mediator is necessary unity is wanting—not simply in a numerical but in a moral sense, as matter of feeling and of aim. There are separate interests, discordant views, to be consulted. This was true of Mosaism. It was not the absolute religion. The theocratic legislation of the Pentateuch is lacking in the unity and consistency of a perfect revelation. Its disclosures of God were refracted in a manifest degree by the atmosphere through which they passed. In the promise God spoke immediately and for Himself. The man of Abraham’s faith sees God in His unity. The legalist gets his religion at second-hand, mixed with undivine elements. He projects on the divine image confusing shadows of human imperfection (Findlay).

Lessons.—

1. The law is powerless to remove the sin it exposes.

2. The law had the defect of all preparatory dispensations.

3. The law imposes conditions it does not help to fulfil.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Gal_3:19-20. The Law is for Transgressors.

I. We are taught to examine and search our hearts by the law of God.—

1. When any sin is forbidden in any commandment of the law, under it all sins of the same kind are forbidden, all causes of them and all occasions.

2. A commandment negative includes the affirmative, and binds us not only to abstain from evil, but also to do the contrary good.

3. Every commandment must be understood with a curse annexed to it, though the curse be not expressed.

4. We must especially examine ourselves by the first and last commandments. The first forbids the first motions of our hearts against God, and the last forbids the first motions of our hearts against our neighbour.

II. The law of God to be reverenced.—

1. Because it was ordained or delivered by angels.

2. We are to fear to break the least commandment, because the angels observe the keepers and breakers of it, and are ready to witness against them that offend.

3. If thou offend and break the law, repent with speed, for that is the desired joy of angels.

4. If thou sin and repent not, look for shame and confusion before God and His angels.

III. God, the Author and Source of law, is one.—

1. He is unchangeable.

2. His unchangeableness the foundation of our comfort.

3. We should be unchangeable in faith, hope, love, good counsels, honest promises, and in the maintenance of true religion.—Perkins.

Gal_3:19. The Use of the Law.

I. It is a standard to measure our defects.

II. It is a sword to pierce our conscience.

III. It is a seal to certify that we are in the way of grace.—Tholuck.

No Trust in Legal Prescriptions.—St. Paul, with the sledge-hammer force of his direct and impassioned dialectics, shattered all possibility of trusting in legal prescriptions, and demonstrated that the law was no longer obligatory on Gentiles. He had shown that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was to the enlightened conscience a matter of indifference, that circumcision was nothing better than a physical mutilation, that ceremonialism was a yoke with which the free, converted Gentile had nothing to do, that we are saved by faith and not by works, that the law was a dispensation of wrath and menace introduced for the sake of transgressions, that so far from being, as all the Rabbis asserted, the one thing on account of which the universe had been created, the Mosaic code only possessed a transitory, subordinate, and intermediate character, coming in, as it were in a secondary way, between the promise to Abraham and the fulfilment of that promise in the gospel of Christ.—Dean Farrar.

The Use of the Law under the Gospel.

I. The law never was intended to supersede the gospel as a means of life.

II. The most perfect edition of the gospel, so far from having abolished the least tittle of the moral law, has established it.

III. The use of the law.—

1. To constitute probation.

2. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

3. The law serves to give beauty and symmetry to the hidden man of the heart.

4. To vindicate the conduct of our Judge in dooming the impenitent to eternal death.

Lessons.—

1. Since the law as a covenant has been superseded by a covenant better adapted to our guilty and helpless circumstances, let us make a proper use of the mercy, acquaint ourselves with its demands, and abound in the holiness it enjoins.

2. Mark those who set aside the law, shun their company, and pray for their repentance.—Iota.

Gal_3:20. The Unity of God and His Purpose regarding Man.—

1. The covenant with Adam in his innocency was immediate, no mediator intervening to make them one; there was no disagreement betwixt them because of sin.

2. No man can attain heaven, or reap any advantage, except he be perfectly holy. God made no covenant of works with men on Mount Sinai, nor could they have reaped benefit from such a covenant as they were a sinful people, standing in need of a midsman betwixt God and them.

3. The Lord in all His dispensations is always one, and like to Himself without shadow of turning. If any plead a right to heaven by the merit of their works, God will abate nothing of what He did once prescribe and require of man in the covenant of works.—Fergusson.

An Effectual Mediator.—Edward III., after defeating Philip of France at Creçy, laid siege to Calais, which, after an obstinate resistance of a year, was taken. He offered to spare the lives of the inhabitants on condition that six of their principal citizens should be delivered up to him, with halters round their necks, to be immediately executed. When these terms were announced the rulers of the town came together, and the question was proposed, “Who will offer himself as an atonement for the city? Who will imitate Christ who gave Himself for the salvation of men?” The number was soon made up. On reaching the English camp they were received by the soldiers of Edward with every mark of commiseration. They appeared before the king. “Are these the principal inhabitants of Calais?” he inquired sternly. “Of France, my lord,” they replied. “Lead them to execution.” At this moment the queen arrived. She was informed of the punishment about to be inflicted on the six victims. She hastened to the king and pleaded for their pardon. At first he sternly refused, but her earnestness conquered, and the king yielded. When we submit our hearts as captives to the Father, and feel that we are condemned and lost, we have an effectual Mediator who stays the hand of justice.

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

(Gal_3:19 to Gal_4:7.)

a. The law had its own sufficient end, having respect to transgressions, and so far from opposing to the promises, it had the office of preparing the way for their fulfilment, as a schoolmaster unto Christ

Footnotes:

[26]Gal_3:15—[Κεκυρωμένην, simply “confirmed.” If anything be supplied, it need not be in the conditional form of the E. V.—R.]

[27]Gal_3:15.—[“Disannulleth” is now obsolete, the simple form being of precisely the same signification. “Addeth thereto” i. e. new conditions.—R.]

[28]Gal_3:16.—[The change in order is necessary to emphasize “and to his seed.” ’̓Ερ̀ῥ έ θησαν, א. A. et al. Lachmann, Tischendorf Meyer, et al., instead of” ̓Εῤῥ ή θησαν, Rec.—R.]

[29]Gal_3:17.—[The structure of this verse is cumbrous, but the insertion of “that” renders it still more so.—R.]

[30]Gal_3:17.—Εἰς Χριστόν is lacking in several MSS. including א. The connection however favors the belief in its genuineness, since otherwise the argument in Gal_3:16 would hardly be turned to practical account. [Omitted in א. A. B. C. many versions, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot. Retained by Griesbach, Wordsworth, bracketted by Ellicott. If retained, may be rendered “to Christ,” or “for Christ.” See Exeg. Notes.—R]

[31]Gal_3:17.—[Ούκ ἀκυροῖ—“cannot” may be implied, but is not expressed. “Invalidate” is preferable to “annul,” as the Greek word differs from that rendered “annul” (Gal_3:15).—R.]

[32]Gal_3:18.—[Κεχάρισται, “has given freely,” “given of grace.” We have no single word to express it—R.]

(Gal_3:19-24.)

19Wherefore then serveth the law [lit. what then is the law]33 It was added]34 because of [the] transgressions, till the seed should come to whom35 the promise was [has been] made; and it was ordained [being ordained]36 by [by means of] angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God Isaiah 21 one. Is the law then against the promises of God?37 God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should [would] 22have been38 by the law. But [ἀλλά, But, on the contrary]39 the Scripture hath concluded [shut up]40 all under sin, that [in order that] the promise by faith of [or in] Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up [kept in ward, shut up41 under the law] unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was [So that the law hath been or become]42 our schoolmaster to bring us [omit to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

b. But for this very reason it has fulfilled its purpose, when it has brought us to faith, and believers, as children (sons) of God and heirs, are no longer under the law.

(Gal_3:25-29.)

25But after [now]43that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children [all sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been [were]44 baptized into Christ have [omit have] put on Christ 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [no male and female]45; for ye are all [all are]46 one in 29Christ Jesus. And [But, δέ] if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and [or omit and]47 heirs according to the promise.

(Gal_3:23-29.—The Epistle for New Year’s festival.)

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Gal_3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?—[“What then is the object of the law?”—R.] If the inheritance is not to come by the law, but still “of promise,” the objection is obvious: why then did not God suffer the promise to stand alone?’ Why then did the law come afterwards? Certainly this was in that case superfluous!—To this Paul answers, in effect, thus: was the law then purposeless, if it had not precisely this purpose, of mediating the obtaining of the inheritance? Could it not have another purpose? Yes, this was the case, it had a purpose, but one very different from that of being the means of securing the inheritance. What then?

The direct answer is not given immediately, but is introduced with: “It was added because of the transgressions.—This means, simply, on account of transgressions was the law added. “Transgressions,” multiplying and becoming aggravated, gave, in the first place, occasion for adding the law, necessarily brought it to pass that God came with respect to His people into an entirely different, more distant relation than existed, in the covenant of promise, between Him and the patriarchs. Instead of the more fatherly relation existing hitherto, God was constrained to place Himself in a relation involving the exercise of severe discipline, involving rigorous requirements and commands, nay, sharp threatenings, as it is afterwards expressed: “We were kept in ward, shut up under the law.” And as this relation so different from the former had been occasioned by “transgressions,” it was of course precisely in its right place where the “transgressions” of men prevailed, and it was designed, with reference to this, not so much in order to prevent them, as rather, by its commandments and prohibitions, and the threatenings annexed, to bring them under a more stringent accountability (which now first became possible), and a plainly expressed curse. Comp. Ewald: In order, because offences had come into the world, to punish them the more severely. (At first the judgment of death had kept the sense of sin alive. As men now were too accustomed to this, the law then came, and therewith the stricter imputation of sin, the curse more severely denounced, the obedience more rigorously required. Rieger.) At the most this is as far as we are to go in the explanation of παρασάσεων χάριν. A more precise declaration as to the positive purpose of the law in relation to “transgressions” is not yet given here; and cannot therefore be deduced from the general expression; for then the second objection (Gal_3:21) would no longer be possible; it is in the refutation of this that Paul first expresses himself more particularly. The common explanation therefore: “For the sake of transgressions” = to induce them (agreeably to what Paul elsewhere says of the effect of the law to promote sin), is at least in no way indicated. The question whether Paul had it in mind would not arise before Gal_3:22-24. That the word χάριν does not necessitate this explanation, is shown by such passages as Luk_7:47; Luk_3:12. [The view here suggested seems to be in the main that of Ellicott and Wordsworth [Milton. Paradise Lost, 7:285). The purpose of the law as here set forth was, not (1) to prevent transgression, nor (2) to create, multiply transgressions, though elsewhere this is mentioned as its effect, but (3) to bring to light “the transgressions” of it already occurring and to occur, to make them “palpable, to awaken a conviction of sin in the heart, and make man feel his need of a Saviour” (Ellicott). Thus “the law had a supplementary, parenthetical, provisional and manductory character, and came in, as it were, incidentally” (Wordsworth).—R.] To this purpose of the law there then agree also:

1. The limited duration of its binding force, continuing only till the seed should come, for with that its purpose in reference to “transgressions” was fulfilled. (Why? is answered Gal_3:23, sq.) “The seed” to whom the promise has been made (see on Gal_3:16) is Christ, for He is the universal Heir; those who are Christ’s are then, it is true, included also in this seed, and become therefore joint-heirs with Him (Gal_3:29). 2. The manner of its origin: ordained by means of angels in the hand of a mediator. As agents in giving the law (not as its authors), Paul designates the angels, agreeably to the ancient tradition, which appears first LXX. Deu_33:2 (not in the original); and also Heb_2:2; Act_7:53; Josephus, Antiq. 15, 5, 3, and in the Rabbins. “In the hand of a mediator”—Moses. Moses received the tables of the law from God, and brought them down to the people. “In the hand” is therefore to be taken strictly. The explanation of most of the Fathers [so Barnes.—R.] referring it to Christ is incorrect. [Lightfoot remarks: “It will be seen that St. Paul’s argument here rests in effect on our Lord’s Divinity as its foundation, otherwise He would have been a mediator in the same sense in which Moses was a mediator. In another and a higher sense St. Paul himself so speaks of our Lord (1Ti_2:5).”—R.] Schneider refers it to the angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special commission to teach Moses the law. Unquestionably the Rabbins speak of an angel of the law, but it is no more possible to prove this Theolo-gumenon to have existed in Paul’s time, than it is to establish it from the Bible (Meyer). The purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity, and still less, indeed, is it, as even Meyer and Wieseler strangely assume, to bring the glory of the law, in the magnificence and solemnity of its institution, before the reader. The dignity of the law itself is not under consideration, but its design, as compared with the covenant of promise. We are not, in reading this verse, to pause without reason at προσετέθη, as though this were a complete idea, but should read the whole verse together. It is true, we first read: on account of transgressions it was added, but the complete statement is: on account of transgressions it was added in the definite way which is described, 1. by “till the seed,” etc., 2. by “ordained by,” etc. In this way did it originate, that Isaiah , 1. in an entirely different way from the covenant of promise; it was not an immediate giving of a promise, not a fatherly provision and agreement on the part of God, but was introduced by a mediation, and a double one, first of angels, and then, and not before, of a human mediator expressly chosen; the former mediation being on the side of God, the latter being given at the desire of the people themselves. (“How strangely does this appear in contrast with the former manifestations of God, in which the promises were given.” Reiger.) This is meant to point out how much more of strangeness God used towards the people in the law, how much more distant a relation it established than the covenant of promise; how could it then have had the same purpose as the covenant?48—But this manner of origin 2. corresponded entirely with the purpose of the law as it has been stated: “because of the transgressions.” As these made the law in general necessary, so, moreover, they were the reasons why God came, only through angels, into relation to His people, and that the people on their side had need of a mediator, to hold intercourse with God. The difference indicated in the latter circumstance between the law and the covenant of promise, is then moreover expressly dwelt upon in the following verse.

Gal_3:20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.—The first words are simple and plain: A mediator (ὁ μεσίτης, the Art. generic) can never be mediator of a single party, the very idea presupposes more than one, two at least, between whom he is μέσος. The question can then only by, whether the design of the remark is, primarily, to express something respecting the mediator himself, personally, or something respecting his function. In the first case the sense would be: He belongs not merely to one, but to the two, the two parties between whom he mediates. So now here in concreto: the mediator of the law belonged to the two parties whose mediator he was, viz.: God and men; and the sense more particularly would be: therefore not merely to God, but also to men. The remark would then be intended as an affirmation respecting the nature of the law, that is, has not only a Divine, but also a human character.—Yet this explanation by no means commends itself. If we join ἑνός with οὐκ ἔστιν, the interpretation: He belongs not merely to one, is much less obvious than the other: He has to do not merely with one, but with two, mediates between two. Still simpler is the construction of Ewald, who joins ἑνός immediately with μεσὶτης=the mediator of one is not, does not exist, is an impossibility. [So Wordsworth.—R.]

But God is one.—The words can mean nothing else: εἶς has a numerical signification, i.e., it can have no other meaning than that of the preceding εἶς, hence not=the same, One with Himself, etc. It is these words especially that have given rise to such an enormous number of attempts at explanation. As regards these the reader is referred to the monographs of C. F. Bonitz, C. F. Anton Reil, Koppe, or the ordinary commentaries, such as those of Meyer and Wieseler, where the more important modern explanations are arranged in order. A detailed examination may be spared here, especially as the passage of itself is not doctrinally important. [Meyer thus remarks on the course of exegesis: “The many different explanations of the passage, and there must be more than 250 of them, have been thus multiplied especially in more modern times; for the Fathers pass lightly over the words, which are plain in themselves, without regarding their pragmatic difficulties, for the most part applying the first clause, which is generally taken correctly, to Christ, who is the Mediator between God and men, some however casting a side glance at the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. Although there was no special dogmatic interest connected with the passage, the variety of interpretations in the 16th and 17th centuries’ (see Poole’s Synopsis) was such, that every expositor of importance took his own separate course, yet without polemical spirit, since no dogmatical question was at issue. The variety has become still greater since the middle of the 18th century, especially since the rise of grammatico-historical exegesis (the phi-logical errors of which exegesis it has however fully experienced), and is still increasing. How often too the absurdest fancies and crudest attempts have availed themselves of our text, the explanation of which seems to be regarded as an exegetical work of art!” He then answers fifteen of the later opinions, besides alluding to others. Jowett reckons 430 interpretations! What a testimony to the amount of exegetical labor bestowed on the Scriptures! That too on a passage which is at best but a general statement in support of a single point in a long argument, which seeks not so much to set forth the gospel, as to remove mistaken views respecting the law! How thankful we should be that the! gospel texts are so pellucid; had they been less so, we should doubtless have 250 interpretations of [ them also. As the exegesis now stands, it is perhaps better to admit that the Verse is δυσνόητόντι (2Pe_3:16). The passage is undoubtedly genuine, and does not refer to Christ. Thus much seems clear. Schmoller gives below an exposition, to which he has added in the second edition another (on which comment is made in the proper place). To this the reader will find added the views of Ellicott and Lightfoot, which have been chosen on account of their clearness, a quality especially desirable, when the explanation has so often been lucus a non lucendo.—R.]

The question is mainly this: Is δέ (of the second clause) simply metabatic, or adversative? A decision in favor of the one view, gives an entirely different sense from that arrived at by adopting the other.—In the first case we have simply the minor premise of a syllogism, ὁ θεός is with εἴς subsumed under the εἴς denied with μεσίτης. The mediator is not a mediator of one, now God is one, therefore, &c. The conclusion now may be various. Wieseler gives it: Therefore the mediator has reference not merely to God, but also to men. But the thought that there is found in ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰς ἐστίν, namely, God is only one party, appears to have too little force. Ewald gives it: Therefore the Mediator has not reference to God, for God is only one, consists not, for instance, of two internally distinct Gods, or of an earlier and later God; it is clear therefore that Moses as mediator, did not mediate, say between the God of the promise and the God of the law, and thereby confound the law with the promise, and so annul the former by what was latter and later, but that he only mediated between God and the people of that time. Ingenious, but far-fetched. The chief objection, however, to this whole view of δέ as metabatic is, that the following sentence in Gal_3:21 points too evidently in νόμος and θεός to a previous antithesis, from which then οὔν deduces an inference. The above mentioned explanations are wanting in the recognition of the inner connection of the two verses (Meyer); the thought breaks off, and an entirely new one begins. Besides, according to Ewald’s explanation the question as to a κατά would not have been in place here, as this κατά is precisely what the foregoing thought would have denied. Δέ is therefore doubtless to be taken adversatively, and the δέ of the first member is the metabatic δέ of a minor premise. Paul had said : The law was given through a mediator. Now with one there is no mediator, while on the other hand God is One. therefore it might be inferred that the law is against the promises. Meyer: Gal_3:20 contains two loci communes, from which a possible inference (Gal_3:21) with respect to the two concretes which are under consideration, is drawn. Sense: A mediator presupposes two, therefore also the law does; in the case of that, there were two parties, between which the mediator intervened;—on the other hand God is One, not a plurality, if the promise therefore, of which God is author (comp. Gal_3:18; Gal_3:21), had its origin through Him alone, there was only a single personage active thereby, it was a purely Divine act, not resting upon a contract of two parties. How entirely different in origin, therefore, was God’s covenant of promise, from the law! (Was it not thereby clearly indicated, that the purpose of the law was not to be the same and therefore is not the same, as that of the covenant of promise, that therefore its purpose in specie cannot have been, to secure—directly—the κληρονομία for men?) But can it not be inferred from this, that the law is against the promises of God? that it stands in conflict with them? so that,-because the law has come, the promises are no longer to be regarded as valid, and a fulfilment of them is not to be looked for; as at the giving of a constitution by compact between prince and people the qestion may arise whether previous promises given on one side are still to be fulfilled? The main point is to understand κατά (Gal_3:21) rightly (even Meter does not explain this correctly). One objection, that the law is then purposeless, if “the inheritance is not of the law,” Paul has refuted in Gal_3:19-20, by pointing to the fact that it was given for an entirely different purpose, as appears from the very manner of its origin. But out of this refutation of the first objection arises a second, whether by this superadding of the law (προσετέθη) the purpose of the covenant of promise be not hindered; first a free promise on the part of God (without regard to παραβάσεις), and then a law, coming through a mediator, who intervened between God and the people, originating therefore by a compact of God and the people (with definite reference to παραβάσεις); does not this then hinder the first, and so far do it away?—This abrogation however is not to be taken in the sense of Gal_3:17, that the law came in the place of the promise, so that the inheritance would now come “of the law,” for this is already refuted, first by the very course of the argument Gal_3:15 sq. from the idea of a διαθἡκη, then also by the refutation of the objection that then the law is purposeless, Gal_3:19-20. The question in Gal_3:21 is to be understood as implying an apprehension that by the law the attainment of the inheritance (which, it is presupposed, according to the proof already given, can only be attained “by promise”) may be hindered, maybe made, comparatively speaking; impossible. It is not, therefore, the form of the “promise” which is here meant, but the substance; on which account we have here again the plural ἐπαγγελιῶν; the question being, whether the law does not render the fulfilment of the promises of God impossible. This alone gives a progress of thought, and this alone is entirely congruous with what follows. Paul now refutes this second objection also. The law in no wise interposes an obstacle to the promises of God, but rather, in itself, agrees fully therewith, nay, although it had not itself the ability or function of bringing—the promises immediately into fulfilment, it was meant nevertheless to serve the purpose of rendering men partakers of this fulfilment by faith in Christ (Gal_3:23-24), and with this the law itself then attained its end (Gal_3:25 sq.).

I allow this explanation, given in the first edition, to remain. It was grounded on that of Meyer, and has at all events this in its favor, in distinction from other explanations, that it puts Gal_3:21 in immediate connection with Gal_3:20, and understands the question in Gal_3:21 as seemingly resulting from Gal_3:20, while the other explanations, though otherwise having much in their favor, assume that the thought breaks off with Gal_3:20, and that in Gal_3:21 Paul merely turns back to Gal_3:17 or 19.—However a new explanation of Gal_3:20 has been given by Dr. Vogel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1865, Heft 3, which, it is true, also fails to give a connection between Gal_3:20 and Gal_3:21, but which, on the other hand, points out the connection between Gal_3:19-20 with better success than usual, and which, in particular, gives due weight to the statement, the law was “ordained by means of angels.” In the other explanations full justice has not been done to this statement, which though otherwise so abrupt, could not have been made without a purpose. Vogel starts from the usually neglected point of the signification of μεσίτης, and shows that μεσίτης by no means signifies merely, and not even predominantly—as is commonly assumed in advance—one who stands in the midst between two, but that it means most commonly one who acts instead of some one, and cares for his affairs.—A genitive joined with it signifies either the matter, which is accomplished by the mediation, or the person whom the μεσίτης represents, or (which however cannot be shown of Paul’s use of it) the several parties between whom he discharges his function (as in 1Ti_2:5). When now it is said of the μεσίτης: ἑνὸς οὑκ ἔστιν; this of course involves the positive affirmition: a mediator can only be the mediator of more than one. And here Vogel admits that it would be most obvious to understand this plurality of a plurality of parties, between whom the mediator stands in the midst, but decides nevertheless in favor of the other interpretation of μεσἰτης: representative—of several persons, for the discharge of their affairs. It is true a representative may very well represent one person only; but then we must understand a representation for the purpose of mediation. In that case it is most natural, only one having to conclude a compact, that he should do it in his own person. But if several have it to do, and that in such a way that the transaction cannot be completed by all, a mediation by one person acting instead of many becomes necessary, and such a person is a μεσίτης. The sense would then be: where a mediator appears, we are obliged to understand him as representing a number of persons. Vogel is led to this interpretation, in the first place by the sentence immediately following: ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰ ἐστίν =but (adversative) Go l is one. He therefore is not that plurality, which the mediator as such implies. Therefore—the strict logical inference—the mediator is not God’s mediator, does not appertain as mediator to God. But whose mediator is this mediator? who is this plurality?

The answer, given Gal_3:19 is: ἄγγελοι—in these we have the plurality we were looking for. The law is, according to Paul, διαταγεὶς δἰ ἀγγέλων. (Comp. Gal_3:15, ἐπιδιατ.: the law is not an ἐπιδιαταγή in the sense that the covenant of promise was thereby prejudiced, or destroyed; it is, however, a προσδιαταγή—comp. προσετέθη—which, however, was not intended to annul the covenant of promise, for it was only meant to be in force “till the seed should come,” etc., that is, only for a time, only till the fulfilment of the covenant of promise should take place. The covenant, therefore, neither could nor should be in any way infringed upon.) The author of the law is not mentioned here, as He had not been at προσετέθη. Of course God is to be understood. But Paul is not specially engaged, in making this authorship prominent. He stops with declaring that the law was ordained—promulgated—through angels, having in mind thereby to place it on a lower level than the covenant of promise. With “in the hand of a mediator” (by which of course no one else than Moses is to be understood) Paul now proceeds to name the signs by which the inferior dignity of the law may be known. The disposition of it committed to the angels, took effect through a μεσίτης, who, it is manifest, is to be regarded then as their delegate. The angels, the sense might be, did not even themselves promulgate the law in their own person, but this was done through a (human) mediator. The sense therefore would be: ordained for men, that is, the people of Israel, through angels, who, moreover, availed themselves of a mediator.—Yet Paul, by “in the hand of a mediator,” is not so much giving a fresh sign of the inferior rank of the law, as strengthening the previous affirmation, “ordained by angels.” The circumstance that a mediator was engaged in the work, was not meant so much to explain the manner of the angelic ministration, as to establish the fact of it. The presence of a mediator was in Paul’s mind closely connected with this, but by no means so closely connected in the current doctrine. How far this circumstance, that a mediator (namely, Moses) had a joint agency in the giving of the law, is a proof of this ministry of angels, is explained in Gal_3:20. “In the hand of a mediator” Paul has said and had to say: but where a μεσίτης is present, a plurality of parties represented by him is to be assumed; God however is not a plurality, but One: The law, therefore, at whose promulgation a plurality intervened, did not proceed from God, but from the angels (these being the only two parties conceivable)—and therefore form a plurality. The clause would not then be properly a proof (as indeed it is not introduced by γάρ), but the fact of the “being ordained in the hand of a mediator” would be simply alluded to for confirmation of the “by means of angels.” It would then in fact be best to include the clause in a parenthesis. This interpretation is not disproved by the fact that in many other passages Moses is explicitly named as dealing with the people by commission from God Himself. Paul could still have the right to say that if in a single passage, as here, the giving of the law is represented as the work of angels, Moses must necessarily be regarded as their delegate; comp. Act_7:38.—It might also deserve attention, that in Gal_3:21 the ἐπαγγελίαι are expressly distinguished by the epithet τοῦ θεοῦ. Is not this connected with the fact that previously at the mention of the law, its Divine origin was entirely passed over and the giving of the law represented as the work of angels?

The question in Gal_3:21 would not then express a conclusion apparently resulting from the immediately preceding statement. It would rather express amazement, as to how any one could even imagine that the law, which is proximately to be referred to the angels, could invalidate the promises of God. It is too weak for that. And what would thus be improbable on account of the mode of the law’s origin, would then be further refuted by the truth, that the law is incapable of giving life.

Even on this interpretation of Gal_3:20, however,—independently of the explanation of οὖν—the sense given by us to the κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν (see above) and to εί γὰρ ἐδόθη (see below) might be preserved.

[The above view to which such prominence is given on account of its novelty and originality, is in all essential features the same as that of Gfrörer [Geschichte des Urchristenthums, das Jahrhundert des Heils; Erste Abtheilung, pp. 228, 229, Stuttgart, 1838). So that, although thirty years old, it has met with less consideration from commentators than is here given to it in its revived form. As Gfrörer himself intimates that this interpretation is “easy to be perceived by the eye which has been sharpened by accurate acquaintance with the Jewish mode of thought,” it may be allowable to suggest that were this Paul’s meaning, his Rabbinical training would be more apparent than in Gal_3:16. Besides this view would make Paul apparently disingenuous in his attempt to lower the claims of the law, which is God’s law,—“through angels, by the hand of a mediator.” And yet the chief peculiarity of this novel interpretation is its ignoring that fact. This vitiates the whole, in our view. As Schmoller remarks Gal_3:19, “the purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity.”49

Subjoined is the view of Ellicott (2d ed.): “The context states briefly the four distinctive features of the law with tacit reference to the promise, 1) restricted and conditioned; 2) temporary and provisional; 3) mediately, not immediately, given by God; 4) mediately, but not immediately, received from God. Three of these are passed over; the last as the most important, is noticed; ‘the law was with, the promise was without a mediator.’ Gal_3:20 thus appears a syllogism of which the conclusion is omitted: ‘Now a mediator does not appertain to one (standing or acting alone); but (in the promise) God is one (does stand and act alone); therefore (in the promise) a mediator does not appertain to God. Is then the law (a dispensation which, besides other distinctions, involved a mediator) opposed to the promises which rested on God (and involved no mediator)? God forbid.’ According to this view the only real difficulty is narrowed to the minor proposition. How was God one? And the answer seems,—not because He is essentially unity, nor because He is one by Himself, and Abraham is one by himself, nor yet because He is both the Giver, the Father, and the Receiver, the Son, united (as held in ed. 1), but, with the aspect that the last clause of Gal_3:18 puts on the

whole reasoning,—because He dealt with Abraham singly and directly, stood alone, and used no mediator.” This has the merit of simplicity and is a safe view. Lightfoot is perhaps not so close in his explanation, but it may well be added: “The very idea of mediation. supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two parties, God on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. But God (the Giver of the promise) is one. Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties, there is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The Giver is every thing, the recipient nothing. Thus the primary sense of ‘one’ here is numerical. The further idea of unchangeableness may perhaps be suggested; but if so, it is rather accidental than inherent. On the other hand this proposition is quite unconnected with the fundamental statement of the Mosaic law, ‘the Lord thy God is one God,’ though resembling it in form.”—R.]

Gal_3:21. God forbid. For if there had been a law, etc.—That the law is not in the sense indicated “against the promises of God,” Paul proves first by the consideration, that if a law had been given which could make alive, δικαιοσύνη would have proceeded from it, i. e., not as it is commonly and altogether erroneously explained, in connection with the erroneous view as to the force of the objection: if a law that could do this had been given, and δικαιοσύνη came from it, then were the law actually” against the promises of God (a sense to which γάρ, rightly taken, is unsuitable); but Paul really wishes to show that the law accords with the promises, and cannot be intended to annul these; for if the law were able to make alive, δικαιοσύνη would actually proceed from it, that is the same effect which is to be wrought through the promises. The law cannot, therefore, in itself, have any tendency hostile to “the promises.” But, he continues, “the Scripture has shut up all,” etc.=the power to “give life” (ζωοποιεῖν) was, as it were, denied the law, in order that “the promise might be given by faith in Jesus Christ.” It could not “give life,” and thereby bring “righteousness,” if only on account of the sins of men; but, in truth, it was not to do this, this was in no wise its design, for the promise was to come ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησ. Χρ’—Given life.—Ζωοποιεῖν = to make inwardly living, not == to give eternal life, for the sense is: if the law could awaken man from his death in sins, and give him spiritual life, “righteousness” (=δεδικαιωμένον εἶναι), would actually proceed from the law, for with the ζωοποιηθῆναι, the condition of justification would be of course perfectly realized. The conclusion is therefore from cause to effect. Meyer incorrectly takes it “from effect to cause,” in connection with his explanation of ζωοποιεῖν as the bestowment of eternal life. The “making alive” is not indeed actually the cause of “justification,” but this is only because a making alive through the law is not possible. It is however precisely this unrealized case, viz., a making alive through the law, that is here spoken of. [The being dead in sins is hero taken for granted; what is meant by “life?” Wieseler’s view is given above. Meyer as usual restricts it to future eternal life; but Lightfoot well says, it includes “alike the spiritual life in the present and the glorified life in the future, for in the Apostle’s conception the two are blended together and inseparable.” This seems to accord better with New Testament usage. The reasoning then is not from the whole to its part (Alford), for the “justification” is not strictly a part, but a condition of “life,” nor from cause to effect, but from effect to cause. “Life” does not comefrom the law, it does not, was not designed to justify, it is not against the promise, but has another purpose afterwards set forth.—R.]

Verily.—Ὄντως= in fact, and not merely according to the fancy of the Judaizers, as is now the case, the hypothesis being denied.—Righteousness.—Δικαιοσύνη is of course not immediately identical with “the inheritance,” but it is an essential element of it, and the one treated of throughout the Epistle, which to be attained by faith.

Gal_3:22. But on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin.—Συγκλείειν is the strengthened κλείειν, to shut up, (not to shut together): then more tropically with εἰς to deliver up as a prisoner to some one; and generally, to give up into the power of any one, to deliver over. ̔Υπό in this verse and the next one expresses this state of subjection still more strongly. Ἡ γραφή: the Scripture, generally, the written word of God: not the law. Τὰπάντα: collective whole=all men;[50] as a fact, doubtless including Gentiles as well as Jews; although, as the context shows, the immediate reference is only to those who have the law, and of whom the Scripture speaks, that is, the Jews.—The sense of this somewhat peculiar expression is easily deduced from Gal_3:21. It is meant to explain, why the law (and generally, any law) could not make alive=impart spiritual life. “If the law had been able ζωοποιεῖν, then δικαιοσύνη would have proceeded from it; an impossible thing, for the Scripture has placed all under the power of sin,” it was therefore not possible to fulfil the law and in this way to come to spiritual life; for the law certainly has not the power to destroy the dominion of sin, such a dominion as exists; it has not the power to break as it were the yoke of sin. But how far now can such a “shutting up under sin” be ascribed to the Scripture? Of course only in so far as it bears witness to this “being shut up.” The sense therefore is: according to the testimony of the Scripture all are subjected under the power of sin=sin exercises a dominion, and that over all. This was the fault of men, but the active expression: the Scripture has done it, points nevertheless to an activity, which, it is true, could not have been exercised by the Scripture (for this, in itself, could only be a witness), but which yet was exercised by the Author of the Scripture, God. He has placed all under the dominion of sin (and that, as appears afterwards, with the design that the promise might be given by faith, etc.). But this, of course, He could only do for the punishment of men, on account of their “trangressions;” it is a punishment ordained of God, that sin should exercise a formal dominion over men.—The connection stated with the previous verse excludes an explanation which otherwise would have a good deal for it, especially because then a function would be ascribed immediately to the Scripture. The explanation is this: the Scripture has, by its declaration, its portrayal, as it were, shut up=subjected all men without leaving any escape or exception, to the sentence: Thou art a sinner! and therewith has also shut them up under the curse which sin brings.—Still less is it meant to be said that the Scripture constrains all to acknowledge that they are sinners. Nor is there any allusion here to the truth, that the law, instead of restraining sin, has promoted it. Unquestionably, however, we are warranted by what Paul elsewhere says of the law, to bring in this thought, not in order to explain the words, but in order to gain a clearer conception of the fact.

The purpose of this “shutting up all under sin” was, that “the promise” should not be given “by the law” but “by faith of Jesus Christ” and therefore that matters should proceed according to the “covenant” of God, that is, that the promised good should be given, in a certain sense attained, not by merit of works, but of free grace. (This was the purpose of God of course with the foreknowledge that this end, on account of the sinfulness of men, cannot be reached through the law.) But more specially this “shutting up under sin” had as its aim, that the promise might be given ἐκπίστεως ̓ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ. For the law was given until the seed should come to whom it had been promised: this shutting up all under sin in consequence of which the law could not make alive, had therefore as its aim, that the promise should be given “by faith” on this Seed, that is, this Seed is Himself first made partaker of the promised good, since, according to Gal_3:16, the promises were given also to Him, and to others only through Him. Therefore also the duplicate expression by faith of Jesus Christ—to them that believe.—It no longer concerns the writer merely to show that the promise is given “by faith” or “to them that believe,” agreeably to its original nature, and therefore really “of promise,” or of grace. This has already been established in Gal_3:17-18, but now, after the new epoch of the history of redemption, the epoch of law, is expressly called an adventitious [hinzugekommene] period, and the sinful condition of men having been made prominent, the discourse is directed more definitely to the point that the promise is given by faith on Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer, of grace therefore, but of grace ministered in this way. [It is perhaps best, with Ellicott and Alford, to take the genitive “of Jesus Christ” as both objective and subjective; the Object and the Giver of faith. St. Paul’s opponents, as nominal Christians, might hold that the promise came to believers only, but he insists that it came not “by the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ.” Hence there is no tautology (Lightfoot)—R.]—“The promise:” here of course, in the objective sense, the object of promise. Taken generally this is=the inheritance; in a more special application that which is attainable for sinful men “by faith of Jesus Christ,” is the “being justified,” as is simply stated in Gal_3:24.—The promise, therefore, was to be given “by faith;” it was not possible “by the law” on account of sin: but before faith came, the law—and that on account of being shut up under sin—or more precisely, the peculiar position of men in respect to the law, was in its proper place, in order to open the way for the revelation of faith. This Paul says in Gal_3:23.

Gal_3:23. But before faith came.—Neither here nor anywhere else [in N. T.] does πίστις mean the doctrina fidem postulans, the gospel, but subjective faith, which however is made objective. When men at the preaching of the gospel, believe on Christ, faith, which before was wanting, was now come, that is, it had entered, so to speak, the hearts of those who had become believers in Christ (Meyer).—We were kept in ward, shut up under the law.—“We”=the Christians from among the Jews. “Under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον) is to be joined with “shut up” (συγκεκλ.)‚ and this is then more closely characterized by “kept in ward” (ἐφρουρ.), which marks the transition to “unto the faith‚” etc. Paul then says first: We were “shut up under the law” the law was the master to whose power, we were completely subjected, without any freedom of our own. And as such (shut up under the law), we were guarded, kept in ward (ἐφρουρούμεθα)=that we might not become free, in substance: we were held in subjection to the law. What now does this mean? Plainly it. characterizes, briefly and strikingly, the nature of the law; it was a pressing yoke, a constraining power, to which men were subject. It was such by its continual holding up of commandments and prohibitions, and especially by what was connected therewith, the continual, terrifying denunciation of the curse in case of transgression in case of the non-fulfilment of the enjoined conditions. According to this, how can the condition of men under the law be more strikingly depicted than as a “being shut up under the law” [the perfect participle, which reading we retain, expressing this continued, permanent state.—R.], and because no manner of dispensation therefrom was bestowed in the whole epoch before faith was revealed as a συγκεκλ. φρουρεῖσθαι? [The meaning of ἐφρουρούμεθα is not “safely kept,” but “kept in ward.” We were shut up under the law and thus kept prisoners.—R.]

The purpose of this representation of the condition of law is no longer merely “to place in the light” still more clearly the great difference between the law and the covenant of promise in itself (as in Gal_3:19-20), but it is now to be shown how the design of the law, in its deeper significance, nevertheless coincided with that of the covenant, how the former was preparatory to the perfecting of the latter. For “we were kept in ward, shut up under the law,” says Paul, unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. This is to be taken not merely as temporal, but also as telic=for faith=to the end that it might be possible for faith to be revealed, the same faith therefore, in reference to which it had just been said, that the Scripture shut up all under sin, in order that the promise might be given through it. The direct aim of the law, therefore, was the revelation of this faith, and through this we are made partakers of the promise; so absolutely untrue is it, that it stood in the way of the promise.—“Revealed:” for “so long as men had not yet believed on Christ, faith had not yet come into manifestation, it was still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which, as a historical manifestation, was unveiled, when the congregation of believers came into being.” Meyer. How far now was this being “kept in ward, shut up under the law” preparatory for faith, and pointing to it? This Paul does not state; we must fill out the statement for ourselves, which however is not difficult after the preceding remarks. The Scripture has shut up all under sin. But on the other hand these same were kept shut up under the law. What else was purposed thereby (since ζωοποιεῖν through it is already excluded), than to awaken and keep continually awake in the soul, the fearful consciousness of standing under the curse of the law (the curse comprehended in the law itself, against transgression of it, against sin), and by this very means, on the other hand, to ground more and more deeply in the soul the conviction of the impossibility of attaining to “righteousness” through this law. The first effect, the consciousness of deserving the curse is elsewhere (comp. Gal_2:19) designated by Paul as a “dying,” and this operation of the law as a “killing.” Comp. 2Co_3:6. In this way it led to the revelation of faith in men’s hearts, as to the only way of escape yet possible, or, it led to the longing for a redemption from sin, and thus made men willing for faith. on the Redeemer given by God in Christ. [This was the result, but the state “under the law” was still objectively real, whether this consciousness were awakened or not Ellicott remarks on the unusual order, that it “seems intended to give prominence to μέλλουσαν, and to present more forcibly the contrast between former captivity and subsequent freedom.” Comp. Rom_8:18.—R.]

Gal_3:24. So that the law hath been.—Ὥστε: an inference. The fact of this “being kept in ward,” etc., “unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” made the law our schoolmaster.—This name it deserves, and that for a twofold reason: 1. The παιδαγωγός [51] approaches his charge with commands and prohibitions, nay, sometimes with threats of punishment, and in general, with limitations of his freedom, and lays upon him in this respect a stringent yoke; there takes place a keeping in ward, shut up under him. This limitation of freedom, and in general this whole relation of subjection, is not however an end in itself, but has place only as a means to an end, serves a higher purpose, namely, that the pupil may be trained for mature age, and for the assuming of that higher grade, for which he is destined; “kept in ward, shut up” only “unto” that, which is afterwards to be revealed. And, according to Gal_3:23, the function of the law also had precisely this twofold aspect.—This goal that was set for attainment, the second point, was the main thing with the pedagogy of the law; this, therefore, is expressly stated in the added phrase (hath been our schoolmaster) εἰς Χριστόν, unto Christ.—This is unquestionably relic; this again is more precisely explained by that we might be justified by faith.—The goal was Christ=justification by faith in Him. Justification, which the law itself could not bring, because “shutting us up under sin,” it was yet to open the way for, to conduct to; because it could not itself bring it, was yet to impel to the seeking and attaining of it “by faith.”

Gal_3:25. But after that faith is come, etc.—The law was preparatory to faith in Christ (and so far, indeed, in agreement with the covenant of promise), but for the very reason that it was preparatory, it had only a temporary validity, it ceased with the coming of that for the coming of which it was meant to prepare. Freedom from the law had the way prepared for it by the law itself, leading as it did to faith (how, see on Gal_3:23); but actual freedom came in only with faith. How?

Gal_3:26 explains how (in connection with the aspect of the law as schoolmaster). By the fact that man through faith becomes a son of God. In this conception, however, we are not unduly to emphasize “son” as is commonly done, and to attribute to it the sense of free, son, come to majority, who therefore no longer stands, as a παῖς, under the παιδαγωγός . No doubt the “son of God” is also the one of full age, and therefore free; but Paul, instead of the bare notion of majority, substitutes at once a higher, theological idea, that of the Child of God. Whoever now stands to God in the relation of child, can no longer remain under the law, that schoolmaster, whose threats of the wrath of God awaken slavish fear.52—Πάντες=all without distinction. This word is meant to emphasize strongly the power of faith. Whoever he be that has it, becomes a son of God and free from the schoolmaster, therefore you also are free. “You” writes Paul of set purpose, having before (Gal_3:25) spoken only of the Jewish Christians as those who had previously been under the schoolmaster. But now: You all, even the Gentile Christians, all you who are become believers,—that it might come into no one’s mind, to place himself, of his own accord, under the schoolmaster, the law.—Paul says designedly in Christ Jesus instead of a genitive immediately depending on faith because he wishes to predicate of Christians that they are in Christ Jesus. For he proves that they are sons of God, from their putting on Christ, ver 27.

Gal_3:27. The demonstrative force here appear to be simply in this, that Christ was God’s Son (Meyer). Wieseler’s objection that Son of God is not used in a similar sense to that in which υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ would be applied to Christ, because it is not used in the sense to a being begotten of God, is a strange one. Certainly that is not meant, but by this very putting on of Him who as begotten of God is God’s Son, believers come into the relation of children to God, of course in the measure in which it is possible with them.—It is peculiar that Paul proves that all are the children of God through faith in Christ, immediately from the fact that they all have put on Christ by baptism, and so, without any intermediate step, puts Baptism in the place of Faith. Faith and Baptism, accordingly, are to him in a certain sense convertible ideas, that is, he does not conceive faith without baptism, or baptism without faith; he can therefore prove an effect of faith from an effect of baptism, and doubtless he speaks only to and of such as were not only baptized as well as believers, but with whom also the act of baptism was at the same time an act of faith.—The transition, however, from the “faith is Christ Jesus” to the baptizedin to Christ is easily intelligible in another view also. For nothing proves so clearly that any one has become a Son of God, as that he has put on Christ, and this takes place through the “being baptized into Christ” in a way that is also objective, and therefore undeniable53. On the other hand, his reference to baptism is of course only secondary; he does not as yet mention it in Gal_3:26, because, according to the connection he is there concerned directly with the effect of faith.

The full import of put on Christ is not developed, yet one thing at least is said, and that is primarily the most important—it involves the having become a son of God. It is not immediately = the putting on of “the new man.” For the discussion here respects not the ethical quality of the act, but the relation to God involved in it; it is by justification and the relation of children to God given therewith and not by the subsequent sanctification, that we become free from the pedagogy of the law; the filial relation to God does not result from the putting on of the new man, but the reverse. On the other hand, in becoming a son of God, a man naturally has come into an inner relation to Christ, into communion with Him. This inner relation to Christ, in which we invest ourselves with Him, must then without fail lead to this result, that Christ becomes in us the principle of a new life, and we become inwardly transformed. This result is the more certain in that the entrance into relation with Him is so entirely real, through the act of baptism. One cannot enter into Such inward relation with Christ without also experiencing this inward transformation, at least in its principle. The admonition Rom_13:14 : “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,” may therefore be understood in the sense of an admonition to a corresponding ethical work=to a becoming like Him through our work.—All are children of God by faith (πάντες, Gal_3:26; ὅσοι, Gal_3:27). This Paul carries out in the concrete in Gal_3:28.

Gal_3:28. There is neither Jew nor Greek.—All these natural antitheses do not come into account in this relation,=if one only believes on Christ, he is a son of God, let him be what else he may. This is tersely expressed at the end of the verse by for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.—For this, according to the connection, can mean nothing else than: these distinctions, in a certain sense, antagonisms, do not, as respects being in Christ, come into consideration. All who are in Christ Jesus, are in the same degree “sons of God,” how different soever they may be in other relations, that is, they are all, (ἕν) one and the same. Paul, however, goes somewhat farther yet, and by using εἷς, says that they are capable of being regarded all together, as one (moral) person.—Here too, we are not to think, at least directly, of “the new man” as if the “one new man” were meant.—Why now precisely this concrete explication of the “all” in Gal_3:26? The connection shows that the Apostle’s first concern is to represent the antagonism of Jews and Gentiles as done away in Christ; for by the law this antagonism especially was maintained, and was therefore removed by the falling away of the law. And, on the other hand, the abrogation of the law could not be maintained in full earnest unless that antagonism were regarded as removed. But in order to make this “all” more vivid, or to place in still stronger light the power and meaning of faith in Christ, he adjoins yet other antitheses, and remarks that they too, in the new relation, are no longer reckoned of account; the slave also is through “being in Christ” a “son of God” as well as the freeman, and it is the same with sex. In this also, he appears to have the law still in mind. For these antitheses were maintained by the law; at least the law spoke sometimes of slaves, sometimes of freemen, sometimes of men, sometimes of women, and gave in respect to one class, ordinances which were not in force for another, while in view of faith in Christ, or of baptism in Christ’s name—these antitheses fell entirely away. [There is a slight change of construction in the last antithesis. “The alterable social distinctions are contrasted by οὐδέ, the unalterable natural one is expressed by καί. The latter distinction is specially applicable as against the Jews insisting on their own spiritual privileges, and on the perpetual obligation of circumcision.”—Wordsworth. Of this there may be a hint in the use of vial, “sons,” not “children,” as e. v. The other sex have now the same privilege once belonging to “sons” alone. “Ἄρσενand θῆλυ, generalized by the neuter, as being the only gender which will express both” (Alford).—R.]

Gal_3:29. But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed.—Because Christ Himself is Abraham’s seed (Gal_3:16; Gal_3:19), and those that are His participate in His status.—Heirs according to the promise—for it was to Abraham and his seed that the promise was given, therefore=the promise goes then for you also into fulfilment. On the other hand it needs no proof that those who are Christ’s (because they are heirs by virtue of this fact, that they are Christ’s) are heirs in the way of the promise of grace, not of works.

[Ellicott: “The declaration of Gal_3:7, is now at length substantiated and expanded by twenty-two verses of the deepest, most varied, and most comprehensive reasoning that exists in the whole compass of the great Apostle’s writings.”—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Law and the Covenant. Three points respecting the law are treated of in this section: a) the difference between the law and the covenant of promise; b) the inner relation of the law to the covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance; c) the liberation from the law on the entrance of faith. Upon the first two points we have little more to say in addition to what has been already said in the Exeg. Notes.

a. The difference between the Law and the Covenant of Promise. The law was not only given much later (Gal_3:17), but had also an entirely different character from the covenant of promise made with Abraham, and is not therefore to be regarded as a sort of renewal of that first covenant. The revelation of God to the patriarchs was essentially a different one from the subsequent one at the giving of the law on Sinai. In the first God gave pure, free promises of grace for faith; in the second He also, it is true, gave promises, but imposed as a condition of their fulfilment, the observance of a complex system of law. Or, primarily, the whole sinful people were placed under a constitution of law, and to this promises were attached, but only in the case of obedience; in the case of disobedience, there were threatenings, quite as distinct. To this corresponded the entirely different way in which the law was brought in—in the formal way of a compact concluded through a third party, a mediator, where both sides make engagements, and take on themselves obligations. By this was indicated a separation of God and His people, and it was therefore not the normal relation of God to His people, the one corresponding to the nature of God, but only a relation induced by the circumstances, especially by the transgressions of the people at the time; from the beginning, therefore, it pointed beyond itself, but was, no doubt, for a certain time the proper one, adapted to prepare for the relation of grace between God and His people that had been introduced by His dealings with the patriarchs.

b. The inner relation of the Law to the Covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance. Respecting the second point we give here only the apt remarks of Rieger (although his interpretation of Gal_3:22 is in itself incorrect): The attestation of God, written down and publicly promulgated in the law, has so taken hold of us and all our doing and leaving undone, that no denying, palliating, justifying of ourselves can any longer avail anything, but we must give ourselves up guilty and prisoners under the curse denounced against every transgression; and through this captivity under the law, become pliant and ready for faith on the promise, as afterwards for coming humbly to the cross of Christ preached in the gospel, and thus seizing the only way of escape left remaining to us. The law, then, by its confining me under sin, so far from having the will or power to close against me the access to grace, on the contrary drives me into a strait, in which I am most apt to find and lay hold on the only means of escape. Deluding hiding places of the caves of sin, it indeed closes; but the appointed fleeing to the wounds that have atoned for me it furthers, rather than hinders. In brief: the promise ratifies to man everything, the law comes between and denies him all. Thereupon it is thought, God is against Himself, that must be allowed; but at last it turns out, that, the law itself has had to help to this end, namely, that faith and the promise should have the victory. Christ is the law’s honor, end, and fulfilment.

c. The liberation from the Law on the entrance of faith. Christ is the law’s honor, that is, what honors the law is precisely this, that it leads to Christ. But at the same time and on this very account is He the law’s end and fulfilment. The end of the law, for this beyond question is the intention of the whole Epistle, to demonstrate that Christians are no longer under the law, and in Gal_3:25, this is expressly declared: now that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster; he has fulfilled his office.—This is, in the first instance, to be understood historically. With the coming of Christ the epoch of the law, when it exercised dominion, is past, and a new epoch has begun, that of faith on Christ. Hence, also, those who in this new epoch are added to the people of God, through faith in Christ, that is, the Gentiles, are no longer to be held subject to the law, as though faith were not sufficient for salvation.—But this is to be understood also more specially, in a subjective sense; the man who has attained to faith in Christ, is thereby no longer under the law, but may and ought to view himself as free therefrom, and to appropriate to himself the full consolation of God’s grace, and to oppose it to all accusations of the law.

2. The Law hat still its use, and must be preached among Christians. But if now from (c) it were inferred: The law then no longer concerns us, and ought not to be preached among Christians! this would be a false conclusion. A usus justificatorius, unquestionably, cannot be made of the law under any circumstances, and we must, with Paul, warn men against any such use; and to this extent the position of the Christian preacher, as respects the law, is a negative one. But such a usus, indeed, did not belong to the law in itself, according to its Divine intention (as Paul teaches us), even though it was actually so employed. What belonged to the law, was the usus pædagogicus, and that it has still, and so far it has a function even in this, the New Testament era. For although the epoch of the law as a historical preparation for redemption, ceased with the coming of Christ, and with that the epoch of faith began, yet in the individual the “coming of faith” is always at first inchoate, and in this respect it cannot be said that in the Christian era we simply admonish the soul to have faith in Christ, and lead it at once to the true source of justification. This may indeed take place, nor can it be disputed that there is such a thing as coming to faith in Christ at once. But its depth, its steadfastness, its true, full worth, this faith receives, now as ever, only through the service of the law. This must be held up before each man, and that distinctly and repeatedly, in order to bring him to the knowledge of his incapacity of fulfilling it, of the impossibility of attaining in this way to justification, and of the necessity of faith in Christ. Even the ceremonial part is applicable to this end, in order to make the value of its fulfilment in Christ the more plainly visible. Naturally, however, the specially ethical precepts come into the foreground. (That, in the application of the law within the Christian sphere, these latter, of the whole complex system of the “Mosaic law,” are most prominently in mind, and that, therefore, when we speak of the law as still having a use at the present time, the word is not to be taken in its full sense, is, of course, easily understood.)—In this holding up of the law, in its usus pædagogicus, there is, it is true, only an analogon of what took place in the actual epoch of the law; for the subjection under the law is renewed, so to speak, only in an ideal way. At most, it may be said to him who will not be persuaded of the impossibility of being justified by works of law: then make trial of the law awhile! But on no one may the law be actually imposed, for the sake of having it do its work on him, to prepare him for faith; and no one ought to impose it on himself to this end. And as to the “bondage under law” of the Christian Church before the Reformation, we may. it is true, view in it a permissive Providence of God, and therefore something that was salutary, but we are bound to stigmatize the fact in itself as indicating an entire misconception of the true character of Christianity.—Yet, if the law is to have its usus pædagogicus, an actual subjection under the law must take place, namely, through the medium of the conscience. Only where this “law written in their hearts” exercises its function (but not where there is a mere agitation of feeling or conviction of the intellect), is it possible for a vitally active faith to come into existence. Only for conscientiæ perterrefaclæ do the consolations of the grace of the gospel in reality exist. And these exactions and threatenings of the law in the conscience are in turn essentially enlarged, more clearly defined and intensified by the positive law of God, so that in this sense it amounts to a complete “shutting up under the law.” How long then this “keeping in word, shut up,” etc., is to last, how soon faith is to be revealed, and justification to be brought in, is reserved to God’s secret counsel, who in the history of His people alone knew when the time was fulfilled and who in the case of each soul also, alone knows it. To wish to continue “shut up under the law” would be perverse, for Christ is come, we must press through to Him, and in Him find consolation. But even when faith has been attained to, the temptation may come, to a retrogression “under the law,” which must therefore be overcome with all appropriate means of strengthening faith. In this case then we are to take a decidedly negative position with respect to the law, turning from it, suffering it not to terrify us, nor to expel Christ, and set Moses again in His place. Comp. also, on the whole subject, the admirable observations of Luther. below, in the Homiletical remarks. This no doubt is the usus, which the law even since Christ’s coming has retained. But this use manifests Christ more than ever as the kind of the law; the law is only meant to drive us to Him. But Christ is also the Fulfiller of the law. The question therefore arises, whether the law have not another usus also, for the Christian. Upon this see below, in the remarks upon Gal_5:15 sq.54

3. The significance and the blessing of Baptism. Upon the idea of the “sons of God” see Doctrinal Note 7, on the following Section. Those , are “sons of God,” who believe on Christ, the more certainly so because they have received Baptism, and therewith have been baptized “unto Christ.” For therewith they have “put on Christ” = have come into Christ = into Christ’s relation to God = into the relation of the sons of God. Two things are implied in this passage. (1) Baptism is only a “putting on Christ,” because joined with faith, it is therefore to be considered as such only when this connection really exists. That is: whoever positively does not believe on Christ, of him it. is true, even if he chance to have received baptism outwardly, that he has not put on Christ. (Indeed, his being baptized could hardly be called “baptized into Christ.”) On this ground, however, our practice of infant baptism remains legitimate. In the case of those, who do not yet believe when they are baptized, only because they are not yet capable of believing, but in whom there is just as little unbelief, or perverted faith in any thing else; in the case of children, who are brought by their believing parents to baptism, nothing certainly hinders us from assuming that they in fact “put on Christ.” Let us consider only what this means. Not, to become a new man (see above, in the Exeg. Notes), but in the first instance only to enter into the relation of children to God. For children certainly are not yet “under the law,” and are not placed under the law (and consequently slavish fear of the Divine wrath and curse is out of the question), but are consciously placed by their parents under the promise of God in Jesus Christ. And if any significance at all is to be attributed to the parental care in this behalf, it must be assumed that an actual transfer under the promise takes place, where no positive opposition can exist. They receive from God the adoption of children, although as yet they do not use or comprehend it, that is, God comes into the relation of a Father to them, and accepts them as His children “in Christ Jesus,” although as yet, they know it not. From this possession in fact, to the conscious use of it, those baptized then make the transition in the measure in which they themselves apprehend in faith the promise of God in Christ, and the most efficacious means for promoting this conscious apprehension in faith, is precisely the translation in fact into this relation to God, that has already taken place in baptism. What therefore with the adult, come to self-consciousness, is one act, namely, the communication of the blessing and the consciousness of having it, the translation into the adoption of children and the use and enjoyment of the same, is, with the child, divided. The possession is assured to it, in order that from the very beginning of self-consciousness, it may feel itself already in possession of the good, and may so much the more certainly make use of the same.55 And yet—more nearly regarded—the distinction is not even so great as this, for with the adult also, the possession in fact of the adoption of children (the “putting on Christ”) and the consciousness and enjoyment of it—are two things by no means always coincident, but the latter is lacking only too often, from the weakness, nay, want of faith, that may intervene, and then the first, concern always is to apprehend the promises of God afresh in faith, or more exactly, by recalling to mind that we possess them in fact, to quicken anew faith, that is, the consciousness of the possession. (2) But it is to be observed, that on the other hand also, the power of effecting the putting on of Christ, and of making one a child of God is ascribed to faith only because it is joined with the being “baptized into Christ,” and therefore also, we may further conclude, can be ascribed only to it, when it is joined therewith. So then the candidate’s longing after faith inheres, as it were, in his baptism, and finds first through this its realization, so the converse is true: Faith not without Baptism! i. e., not merely that baptism must be added to faith, to perfect and to seal it, &c. but although a beginning of faith, more, however, in the nature of an inquiry of the heart after the salvation in Christ, than any thing more definite must precede baptism,—faith itself comes to the certainty: I have salvation in Christ, that is, in fact, comes really to be faith, only upon the ground and in virtue of that acceptance of the individual on the part of God, and that giving of himself up to God, which takes place in the act of baptism. Only on the ground of baptism, therefore, does the actual putting on of Christ take place, and therewith the becoming a child of God. Unquestionably this is the blessing and the significance of baptism, that it would thus help us to faith, to certainty as to our personal state of grace in Christ, even though in special circumstances it is reserved to God to lead a man without baptism to the certainty of faith.

[Calvin’s remarks on Gal_3:27, present the middle ground of the Reformed Confession: “It is customary with Paul to treat of the Sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truth—which they represent. In this case he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.—The sacraments retain undiminished their nature and force; they present both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they hold out of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament. With strict propriety, then, does Paul, in addressing believers, say, that when they were baptized, they ‘put on Christ. ’In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot, be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions.”—R.]

4. “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In this sentence there are two truths expressed, complimentary to each other, respecting the faith of Christians: a. All are one, that is, the natural differences, relative antitheses, which exist among men, place no limitations in the way of Christian faith. No one is hindered, by nationality or rank or sex, nor even by his religious belief, from becoming a Christian. Christianity is destined for absolutely all; as certainly as it is the specifically Divine, God-revealed religion; so on the other hand, this character of universality shows it to be the genuinely human religion, the religion destined for mankind as such.—Inasmuch as all can thus attain to faith in Christ, they can therewith, and this is the main thing, all attain also to the blessings contained therein, can all become Gods children, all become heirs of the heavenly kingdom.—b. All, moreover, are also one in Christ. Inasmuch as the Christian faith embraces all, it also unites all, comprehends all in one great whole, and so first realizes in the full sense the idea of the unity of the human race, which by it is transformed into a great family of God. This it was meant to be, but is not of itself, not so much in consequence of the naturally established distinctions, as of the continual influence of (falsely uniting as well as) falsely sundering sin, to which so many false distinctions owe their first origin (as that of slaves and freemen), and which has given to those naturally existing a false tension, and turned them into sundering antagonisms.—This implies at the same time, that Christianity, while it unquestionably does away all artificially established distinctions, does not level down natural ones, grounded in the Divine order of creation (such as sex, age, and also nationality), although it will have them divested of all harshness and false exaggeration (comp. also Anacker).

[The truth here set forth by the Apostle contains also the principle of true evangelical catholicity. As all are one, irrespective of the natural differences, relative antitheses, which previously existed; so all, who are “in Christ Jesus” are one, irrespective of the differences and antitheses, which remain after they become Christians. That through the influence of yet remaining sin, these antitheses become antagonisms, does not destroy the real unity, since all “in Christ Jesus” are at least tending towards assimilation to Him. This unity (or catholicity, as applied to the church) is something superior to external uniformity, whether of rite, order or mere theoretical creed. But, at the same time, it is something widely different from latitudinarianism. The latter has no positive basis, but this is the actual unity “in Christ Jesus,” the real catholicity of those who are “one,” not from outward constraint, or ecclesiastical regulations (however excellent), but from their position “in Christ Jesus,” which necessarily involves oneness of life from Him, with Him and in Him. Such a catholicity will lead neither to attempts to unite the visible church by means of external uniformity, nor to less earnest holding fast to the truth as it is in Jesus. In the Catholic Church, as thus constituted, “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision” (rites, polity, philosophic or speculative theology), “but a new creature.” Gal_6:15.—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Gal_3:19. Luther:—Even as it does not make sense for a man to say: Money maketh no one righteous, therefore it is worth nothing, just as little does it profit to say: The law maketh no one righteous, therefore is it a useless thing. But a man should so acquaint himself with the matter, as to attribute to each particular thing its own functions, that suiteth and appertaineth thereto. [Bunyan:—He that is dark as touching the scope, intents and nature of the law, is also dark as to the scope, nature and glory of the gospel.—R.]

Luther:—See here most evidently the evil consequence of transgressions. On account of these God was constrained to change His countenance towards His people, and could no longer simply give promises of grace. A separation had ensued, and a mediator must intervene, who yet could only throw a bridge over, but could not do away the schism; the people were placed under a law, that commanded, and promised also, it is true, and yet the promises could not receive their fulfilment.—Essentially this, even now, is always the result of transgressions. The law comes in, held up by the conscience, but this is only a mediator, which throws a bridge over, so that there is still a connection, but the separation cannot thus be taken away.—Yet as it was true of the people collectively, so is it true of the individual, that the law came indeed because of transgressions, but only until the seed should come. It is to find its end when it has done its work; is then to yield again to the Divine grace in Christ. Christ also it is true was called a Mediator, for He also was to unite that which was severed. But He has really united it, and not merely thrown over a bridge. For He received from God and brought to the people not merely the law, but came for the people’s sin and transgression “with His offering of Himself, and so removed the separation.” Whereas when Moses interceded upon the Mount for his sinful people, his office of mediator approached, indeed, to that of Christ; but after the intercession, although it preserved the people from destruction, he still came back to them with new tables of the law, and with the glory on his countenance which the people feared, and which he must therefore hide. Entirely different is the glory of the new Covenant.

Gal_3:21. Spener:—What God has ordained, is not at variance within itself, and therefore law and gospel are not at variance. Both agree together, But that we sometimes think they are contrary to one another, comes from our want of understanding. If we find therefore any two things in the Holy Scriptures that seem to contradict one another, we must yet believe otherwise concerning them, because both are spoken by God, and the defect is in us alone, that we cannot comprehend it.—[John Brown:—What a sad aptitude is there in our depraved nature to misapprehend the design of the gifts and works of God, and to pervert that to our destruction which was meant for our salvation, rendering such an exuberance of illustration necessary to prevent fatal mistake as to the purpose of “the law.”—R]

Berlenb. Bible:—The law cannot make living. It commands only: This shalt thou do, else thou art accursed. It does not give spiritual energies, hut presupposes them. It cannot, bring new Divine life into the dead heart of man. Therefore also it cannot justify. If it could do this, “then would be extolled and revealed to man, not God’s grace, but rather men with their own power, merit, and work, which would be wholly opposite to the gospel, wherein God alone is recognized as righteous, but all men as false and powerless.”

Gal_3:22. The Scripture does not acknowledge in man the ability to help himself. It is the revelation of the general ruin, of the dominion of sin, over all men, showing how it began with the fall of the first man, and has extended itself over the whole. There follows from this the necessity of a redemption. This testimony of Scripture, still continued, should persuade us also, of the impossibility of attaining through works, that is, through our own strength, to justification, and of the necessity of entering, for that purpose, upon the way of faith. If the Scripture has shut up all under sin, it is an idle fancy, if thou thinkest thou canst nevertheless, in contradiction thereto, fulfil the law.—“That the promise‚” etc. Blessed purpose of the terrifying judgment: God would thereby only close up the false way, and therewith, as it were, procure Himself space for the redemption through Christ, and thus for the manifestation of His free grace agreeably to the covenant of promise.

Gal_3:23. Luther:—The law is a prison, both bodily and spiritually. Bodily, it guards the ungodly outwardly, and restrains them so that they may not according to their will and pleasure practice all manner of villainy without fear. Then it shows us also spiritually our sin, terrifies and humbles us, in order that, when it has so terrified us, we may recognize our misery and perdition. And this is its true work or office, which it is appointed to discharge in us; yet so that it endure not forever.—The law with its custody is meant to serve our best good, namely, that when we are terrified thereby, grace and the forgiveness of sins may become to us so much the sweeter and more amiable, such as man can attain to by no works, but only through faith.—Whoever now is so well skilled, that in time of temptation he can bring together these two things, which are yet else of all things most opposite to one another, that is, whoever knows, when the law terrifies him most vehemently, that then the end of the law is at hand, and also the beginning of grace and faith, such a one knows rightly how to use the law. Know thou, that the law slays thee to this end, that thou mayest, through Christ, be made truly alive?—What has happened historically, at a certain point of time, since Christ has come, has done away the law, and brought freedom to light; the same happens day by day, spiritually, in every Christian man. For in such a one the matter is wont to take such a course, that now the time of law and the time of grace, ever one after the other, has room and place.—The law has its time, when it urges him, torments and plagues him, and brings him to feel his sin and acknowledge its greatness, to be afraid of death and God’s judgment. And when it does this, it accomplishes its fitting and becoming work, which a Christian, while he yet lives in the flesh, feels more and oftener than he would fain feel it. But the time of grace is, when the heart, through the promise of Divine grace, is again helped up, so that it gains confidence through Christ towards God, and says: “Why then art thou cast down, O my soul, and why art thou disquieted in me?” Seest thou then nothing at all than merely law, sin, terror, mournfulness, despair, death, hell and the devil? Is there not also such a thing as grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, consolation, joy, peace, life, the kingdom of Heaven, God and Christ? We should with diligence learn to distinguish both manner of times, not with words only, but also in the heart, wherein they have their working. But this is above all things difficult. For although these two times, of law and grace, are widely different from each other, as concerns their unlike working, yet are they of all things most closely Joined together, namely, in one heart. Yea, no one thing is to another so near as fear and faith, law and gospel, sin and grace. For so near are they to one another, that one consumes away and devours the other.—The law is abused, first, by all such as set their holiness in works, and indulge themselves in such dreams as that men can be made righteous by the law.—The law, secondly, is also abused by those that would set Christians wholly free therefrom, as the enthusiasts essayed to do, and who dream that Christian freedom is such a freedom us that every one, after his own pleasure and presumptuous mind, may do what he will.—The law is abused, thirdly, by those that are terrified thereby, and yet understand not, that such terror should not endure longer than until they reach Christ. These, through such abuse of the law finally fall into despair, even as hypocrites by their abuse of the law, become proud and presumptuous. On the contrary, one can never highly enough estimate and value, what a dear, precious, and excellent thing it is to have the law, when it is rightly used.—[Such wrong use of the law is made by those who, appointed to lead children to Christ, continually din in their cars such false doctrine, such old legalism, as this: “My child, be good, do thus and so, or God will not love you.” What wonder when parents and teachers make the first wrong use of the law above referred to, that the little ones, whom a better training would speedily bring to Jesus, waiting to receive them, make the third wrong use of the law, and are terrified by it. “Forbid them not” thus! Parents do not stand in the place of the law as a schoolmaster, but, as it were, in the place of God, the Father.—R.]

Gal_3:24. [Burkitt:—Moses and the law is a rigid and severe schoolmaster, who by whips and threats requires an hard lesson of his scholars, whether able to learn it or not; but Christ and the gospel, is a mild and gentle teacher, who by sweet promises and good rewards, invite their scholars to duty, and guide and help them to do what of themselves they cannot do; by which means they love both their Master and their lesson, and rejoice when it is nearest to them to direct them in their studies—R.]

Luther:—If the law is done away, we are never henceforth under its tyranny, but are under Christ, and live in all security and joy, through Him who now reigns in us mildly and graciously by His Spirit. Therefore, if we could rightly apprehend Christ, the dear Saviour, this severe and wrathful schoolmaster would not dare to touch a hair of our heads. From this it follows, that believers, as concerns the conscience, are by all means free from the law; on this account the schoolmaster [Zuchtmeister] should not rule therein, i. e., he should not affright, threaten, or take the conscience captive, and though he should undertake it, the conscience should not care for it, but should behold Christ on the cross, who through His death had freed us from the law and all its terrors. Nevertheless there is sin still remaining in the saints, whereby their conscience is accused and plagued. Yet Christ helps it up again through His daily, yea, continual drawing near. For like as Christ, when the time was fulfilled, came once upon earth, that He might redeem us from the insupportable burden and power of our schoolmaster, even so does He come every day, yea, every hour, to us spiritually, that we may grow and increase in faith and the knowledge of Him, and that the conscience may from day to day better and more certainly apprehend Him, and on the other hand, that the law of the flesh and of sin, the fear of death, and terror before God’s wrath and judgment, and whatever else my unhappiness is, that the law is wont to bring with it, may continually grow weaker and weaker, and diminish more and more.

Gal_3:26. [Calvin:—It would not be enough to say that we are no longer children, unless it were added that we are freemen; for in slaves age makes no alteration. The fact of our being children of God proves our freedom.—R.]—In Starke:—Even among God’s children are many found that still are burdened with many weaknesses, as is witnessed by the example of the Galatians.

Gal_3:27. Luther:—To put on Christ according to the gospel, means not, to put on the law and its righteousness, but means, by baptism to receive the unspeakable treasure, namely, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, peace, comfort, joy in the Holy Ghost, blessedness, life and Christ Himself with all that He is and has.—Starke:—The putting on of anything is such a union with that which we put on, that it becomes quite our own, that we therewith cover our nakedness, adorn ourselves, yea, it may even be, are superbly attired. Considering this matter, we may remember how our first parents, before their fall, needed no clothes to cover their nakedness, but after the fall sought them idly in fig-leaves, as an image of their own righteousness, in the place of which God made them other clothes of skins, as an image of the righteousness of Christ; for this is our beautiful garment, because it covers our nakedness, and protects us against the wrath of God, and adorns our soul.—O exceeding benefit, that we were baptized into the name of Jesus, even in our childhood ! The remembrance of our baptism should be to us a continual assurance of participation in Christ and the kingdom of God; but not the less also give to us a continual impulse to all the faithfulness which the covenant of grace requires.—Believing Christians have in their daily putting on of apparel, especially when they put on new and clean garments, a beautiful figure, whereby they should bethink themselves, partly for comfort, of their legitimate nobility in Christ, partly of their bounded duty towards Him.

Gal_3:28. [Burkitt:—Now since the coming of Christ there is no difference or discrimination between one nation and another, no regard to any national privilege, either of Jew or Gentile, no distinction of conditions either bond or free; or of sexes, cither male or female; but circumcised or uncircumcised, we are all, one as good as another, in respect of outward privileges, or external advantages; but being sincere believers, we are all equally accepted of God in Christ. No external privilege or prerogative whatsoever, without faith in Christ, is any whit available to salvation; none are debarred from Christ, nor more nor better accepted with Him for any of these things.—R.]—Luther:—“For ye all are one in Christ Jesus.” These are great and admirable words. Before the world and according to the order of the law, there is a very great distinction of persons, which should be most diligently maintained. For if the wife in the family would be husband, the son father, the scholar master, the servant lord, the subject ruler, what would come of it all? Truly a wild confusion, so that no one could know which was which.56 But because Christ’s kingdom is not a kingdom of the law, but of grace, there is also no distinction of persons therein. The Christ whom St. Peter and St. Paul, together with all the saints, have had, even the same I, thou, and all believers, also have, the same have all baptized children also. Therefore a Christianly believing conscience knows nothing at all of the law, but looks alone upon Christ, through whom it comes to the unspeakable glory of being God’s child.—Lange:—If all men are one in Christ, as respects the Divine benefits or blessings of salvation, so no less do the rules of life given, and the duties inculcated by Christ, apply to all, so that no one may except himself.

Gal_3:29. Starke:—The seed of Abraham is Christ with all His Christians, who cleave to Him in faith. He the Head, they as His members; He as the One through whom the blessing comes; they as His associates. Intimate and glorious union!

On Gal_3:15-22. (The Epistle for the 13th Sunday after Trinity.) Heubner:—The covenant of God with Abraham an everlasting covenant with the good. 1. Establishment, character of the same in itself: a) it is truly Divine, inviolable (Gal_3:15) and b) had reference as to its contents to all men and their redemption through Christ. 2. The continuance of the same even under the law (Gal_3:17-20): a) The law cannot abrogate the covenant of grace (Gal_3:17-18). b) On the other hand the law is meant as a dispensation on account of sin to prepare the way for the perfect dispensation of the covenant (Gal_3:19-20). 3. The perfecting of the same by Christianity: a) necessity of this covenant even according to the law (Gal_3:21), b) the condition of the same is faith in Christ (Gal_3:22).—The false and the right use of the law.—The dispensations of God for the salvation of men: Abraham, Moses, Christ. (The three stages of the economy of Salvation in their relation to each other.)—The unity of God with all the external difference of his revealed dispensations.—The one purpose of all the institutions of salvation.—Christ the consummation of all revelations.—Genzken: Promise and law: (1) Both given by God, (2) have both one divine purpose.—Westermeier: The testament of our God: (1) its excellence, (2) its irrepealableness.—Joh. Chr. Starr: The use of the gospel for our salvation: whoever uses the same aright, regards it as a Testament, a) to which he adds nothing, because it is God’s Testament (Gal_3:15 sq.), b) as a testament confirmed by the death of Christ (Gal_3:17), c) as a free irrevocable gift of grace (Gal_3:18-20), d) in which alone righteousness and life are to be sought.—In Lisco: The purpose of the law : (1) what it is not, (2) what it is.—God’s covenant of promise an unchangeable one=not abrogated by the law: (1) the law might not abrogate it, because it had long before been established (Gal_3:15-18); (2) could not abrogate it, because it could not replace it = could not help to justification (Gal_3:21-22).

Gal_3:23-29. (Epistle for New Year’s Day.)57 Heubner: The happiest entrance into the new year: (1) When we grow out of sin and the law’s constraint and through faith become children of God (Gal_3:23). (2) When We begin a new life after Christ’s example, and become united in love (Gal_3:27-28). (3) When we keep in mind the hope of one day celebrating in Heaven the eternal year of jubilee—The free, courageous mind with which the Christian enters upon the new year.—Westermeier: The precious New-year’s gifts out of God’s word, which this epistle offers: (1) Golden freedom; (2) A high rank; (3) A beautiful garment; (4) Peace and unity; (5) The best hopes for the future.—In Lisco: At the entrance upon a new year how important for all believers is the certainty that we are God’s children.—Schazzer:—How happy our life in the new year will be, when it is a life in the new covenant! (1) What means it: to live in the new covenant? a) not to live without God; b) nor as in the old covenant =under the law; c) it means: life in the faith of the Son of God—in the adoption of God’s children—in communion also with all the children of God. (2) Such a life is happy; for (a) it takes from us what makes us wretched: love of the world and the servile mind; (b) it gives us what makes us truly happy: the joyfulness of faith, the filial feeling, the blessing of Christian communion; (c) it promises us eternal life.—The blessing of being children of God consists (1) in the inward fear; (2) in the brotherly union; (3) in the promised inheritance.

Conard: We are God’s children: (1) this ought to give us repose; (2) impel us to holiness; (3) fill us with blessed hope.—Harless: Freedom in Christ: (1) freedom out of Christ; (2) actual slavery out of Christ; (3) the law and freedom in Christ.

Gal_3:19-29. How is the law related to the covenant of promise? (1) It is essentially distinct therefrom, Gal_3:19-20; (2) yet it is not in conflict with it, for it does not aim to justify (Gal_3:21-22); (3) it is on the other hand advantageous for it, Gal_3:23-24; (4) it must however recede before it (Gal_3:25 sq.)—Christ, (1) the law’s honor=this is the law’s honor, that it points to Christ; (2) the law’s end.—The law points to Christ, but also ends in Christ [1, historically, 2, ethically].—Justification before God (1) comes into effect not without the law, (2) yet not through the law. Or (1) only through faith in Christ, (2) yet not without the law.

[Gal_3:27; Gal_3:29.—Chrysostom (in Turner):—Thus we say, with regard to friends, such a one has put on such a one, when we mean to describe great love and increasing harmony and union. For he who has clothed himself appears to be that with which he is clothed. Let Christ, therefore, always appear in us.—Augustine:—We having put on Christ are all Abraham’s seed in Him, and we are Christ’s members; we are one man in Him.—R.]

[Gal_3:26-28. True freedom in Christ, hence true equality and true unity! How often are they sought by the world and even by the Church in some other way!—R.]

Of Gal_3:21-29 each one is suited to immediate homiletical application. Special suggestions are not needed.

Footnotes:

[33]Gal_3:19.—[The E. V. is sufficiently accurate. Ellicott renders “what then is the object of the law ?” Schmoller: Wie verhült es sick mit dem Gesetz?—R.]

[34]Gal_3:19.—Griesbach and Scholz hare ἐτέθη, which is not sufficiently supported. [So Rec., but προσετέθη is adopted by most modern editors.—The article should be retained with “transgressions” in the E. V. So Ellicott, Alford.—R]

[35]Gal_3:19.—Instead of ᾦ ἐπήγγελται, J. and many cursive, some Fathers also, have ὅ ἐπήγγελται; but this is poorly supported, probably arising from the fact that ᾦ was not understood.

[36]Gal_3:19.—[The italics in the E. V. separate διαταγείς too much from the first clause, with which it is closely connected.—“By means of” brings out the purely instrumental force of διά.—R.]

[37]Gal_3:21.—Τοῦ θεοῦ, bracketted by Lachmann. The omission is not well sustained. א. retains it. [B. is the main authority for rejecting it. Meyer rejects it mainly on exegetical grounds.—R.]

[38]Gal_3:21.—Ἄν ἐκ νόμου. [Rec.] There are different variations: א. has ἐκ νόμου ἤν ἄν, the best attested order is ἐκνόμουἂνἢν. [So A. B. C., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, critical editors generally.—R.]

[39]Gal_3:22.—[The strongly adversative αλλά requires the insertion of “on the contrary” (Alford, Ellicott).—R.]

[40]Gal_3:22.—(As the E. V. renders the same verb (συγκλείειν) Gal_3:23, “shut up,” it is substituted here as less ambiguous than “hath concluded.”—R.]

[41]Gal_3:23.—Συγκεκλεισμένοι is in all probability the correct reading—not συγκλειόμενοι. Yet א. has it [συνκλειόμενοι (sic.) The perfect of the Rec. is adopted by Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, Wordsworth. Ellicott (on critical and exegetical grounds). Lachmann. Scholz, Alford, Lightfoot, adopt the other. The order is changed; “under the law” seems to be best joined with “shut up.”—R.]

[42]Gal_3:24.—[“So that the law hath become” Is more literal. “Schoolmaster” is retained, Since we have-no better word with which to translate παιδσγωγός. “Tutor” (Alford) is no more exact.—“To bring us” is better omitted, since it presents but one side of the meaning.—R.]

[43]Gal_3:25.—[“Now” brings out the idea that it it so.—R.]

[44]Gal_3:27.—[The aorist verbs in this verse are better translated by the simple past tense of the English.—R.]

[45]Gal_3:28.—[The change of particles in Greek with this last pair is thus noted. On its peculiar force see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[46]Gal_3:28.—Εἶς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ̓Ιησοῦ. A. has ἐστε Χριστοῦ I. “But εἶς would easily be overlooked after the preceding ὑμεῖς, and then ἐν Χρ.̓Ι. was first followed by Χριστοῦ as a gloss, from the beginning of Gal_3:29, and afterwards supplanted by it. The reading ἕν instead of εἶς is an explanation.” Meyer. א. has ὑμε͂ις ἐστε ἐν Χριστοῦ, but ἐν is marked doubtful [marked for erasure; the marks afterwards removed, א.3 reading as Rec—It is doubtful whether we should read πάντες or ἄπαντες. א. has the latter.—R.]

[47]Gal_3:29.—Καί is omitted in good MSS., including א., by some versions and Fathers, but may very easily have been overlooked, as it follows καἰ (Meyer). It is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Scholz, [also by Meyer in 4th. ed., Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, on the authority of א. A. B. C. D. As Schmoller follows Meyer in retaining it, it may be rejected here on the same authority.—R.]

[48][John Brown: “The existence of a mediator is certainly no proof that a dispensation is not a dispensation of mercy, for the new covenant has a mediator. But the facts connected with the law being given by the hand of Moses as a mediator, plainly show that the law was not, in its literal meaning and direct object, a revelation of the way of obtaining the Divine favor.”—R.]

[49][See Turner in loco. to whose valuable remarks I am indebted for the discovery that this view is not a new one.—R.]

[50][Calvin, Bengel, Alford. Jowett are disposed to give this a wider meaning: omnia humana, everything which men are, possess or can accomplish, But or this there is no indication in the context, the neuter being chosen because men are here regarded as a collective whole (Meyer).—R.]

[51][As Schmoller omits any detailed reference to the word παιδαγωγός, Alford’s note may well be inserted here: “The παιδαγωγός was a faithful slave, entrusted with the care of the boy from his tender years till puberty, to keep him from evil physical and moral, and accompany him to his amusements and studies. The E. V. ‘schoolmaster’ does not express the meaning fully; but it disturbs the sense less than those have done, who have selected one portion only of the pedagogue’s duty and understood by it, ‘the slave who leads the child to the house of the schoolmaster, thus making Christ the schoolmaster, which is inconsistent with the imagery.” So Lightfoot: “This tempting explanation ought probably to be abandoned. Even if this sense did not require πρός Χριστόν or εἰς Χριστοῦ, the context is unfavorable to it. There is no reference here to our Lord as a teacher. ‘Christ’ represents the freedom of mature age, for which the constraints of childhood are a preparation. Comp. Eph_4:13.”—R.]

[52][In Gal_3:25, the article is omitted before παιδαγωγόν, as if to imply, under any schoolmaster, unter Pädagogengewalt (Meyer). Still as meyer himself suggests, the emphasis must be laid on. θεοῦ, “sons of God;” therefore not in the old pedagogic bondage.—R.]

[53][Alford says “Observe here how boldly and broadly St. Paul asserts the effect of Baptism on all the baptized.” Wordsworth also at some length presses the objective grace of this rite. But surely there is as much and more reason for pressing “by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal_3:26). Clearly the primary truth is “ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus;” the thought of Gal_3:27 is secondary. Where there is baptism and no sonship by faith, the question is an open one, as far as this passage is concerned, whether there has been any such “effect of baptism.” See Doctrinal Notes, 3.—R.]

[54] [This third use of the law, viz.: as a guide to duty, is denied by Schmoller in form, but not in fact. That we must have a guide to our new life is evident enough. The only dispute is, as to whether we shall call it a law or not. Paul certainly does so in Gal_5:14, Gal_6:2. And when this New Testament guide to duty is compared with the ethical precepts of the Mosaic law, it is found to be nothing else than the Decalogue itself, as Christ interpreted it, and as it was from the first designed to be understood. Compare the position of the law in the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism, of Thankfulness, especially Questions 90, 91, 115.—R.]

[55] [Although any wider discussion of the subject of infant baptism would be inappropriate in this place, yet it must be added that any consistent pedo-baptist view must admit as much as Schmoller maintains here. The practice, however cherished from “custom or superstition,” must inevitably fall into disuse (where there is no law compelling it), unless parents and children are brought to look at it in this light. Undoubtedly to my mind, it were better that it should fall into disuse, than be a mere public naming of a child, without any such delightful reality in it, as is here held. Of its efficacy as a means for promoting “the conscious apprehension of the promise of God in Christ,” in after years, instances are still occurring, despite the prominence of “spasmodic” over “educational” Christianity in these days.—R.]

[56][Dass Niemand wüsste wer Koch oder Keller würe.]

[57][In the Lutheran church, etc., not in the church of England.—R.]

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

Wherefore then

The answer is sixfold:

(1) The law was added because of transgressions, i.e. to give to sin the character of transgression.

(a) Men had been sinning before Moses, but in the absence of law their sins were not put to their account. Rom 5:13. The law gave to sin the character of "transgression," i.e. of personal guilt. (b) Also, since men not only continued to transgress after the law was given, but were provoked to transgress by the very law that forbade it Rom 7:8, the law conclusively proved the inveterate sinfulness of man’s nature Rom 7:11-13.

(2) The law, therefore, "concluded all under sin" Rom 3:19; Rom 3:20; Rom 3:23.

(3) The law was an ad interim dealing, "till the seed should come". Gal 3:19.

(4) The law shut sinful man up to faith as the only avenue of escape. Gal 3:23.

(5) The law was to the Jews what the pedagogue was in a Greek household, a ruler of children in their minority, and it had this character "unto" i.e. until Christ Gal 3:24.

(6) Christ having come, the believer is no longer under the pedagogue. Gal 3:25

because of for the sake, i.e. in order that sin might be made manifest as transgression. See, Rom 4:15; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 14

THE DESIGN OF THE LAW.

Gal_3:19-24

"WHAT then is the law?" So the Jew might well exclaim. Paul has been doing nothing but disparage it.-"You say that the Law of Moses brings no righteousness or blessing, but only a curse; that the covenant made with Abraham ignores it, and does not admit of being in any way qualified by its provisions. What then do you make of it? Is it not Gods voice that we hear in its commands? Have the sons of Abraham ever since Moses day been wandering from the true path of faith? "Such inferences might be drawn, not unnaturally, from the Apostles denunciation of Legalism. They were actually drawn by Marcion in the second century, in his extreme hostility to Judaism and the Old Testament.

This question must indeed have early forced itself upon Pauls mind. How could the doctrine of Salvation by Faith and the supremacy of the Abrahamic Covenant be reconciled with the Divine commission of Moses? How, on the other hand, could the displacement of the Law by the Gospel be justified, if the former too was authorised and inspired by God? Can the same God have given to men these two contrasted revelations of Himself? The answer, contained in the passage before us, is that the two revelations had different ends in view. They are complementary, not competing institutes. Of the two, the Covenant of Promise has the prior right; it points immediately to Christ. The Legal economy is ancillary thereto; it never professed to accomplish the work of grace, as the Judaists would have it do. Its office was external, but nevertheless accessory to that of the Promise. It guarded and schooled the infant heirs of Abrahams Testament, until the time of its falling due, when they should be prepared in the manhood of faith to enter on their inheritance. "The law hath been our tutor for Christ, with the intent we should be justified by faith" (Gal_3:24).

This aspect of the Law, under which, instead of being an obstacle to the life of faith, it is seen to subserve it, has been suggested already. "For I," the Apostle said, "through law died to law". {Gal_2:19} The Law first impelled him to Christ. It constrained him to look beyond itself. Its discipline was a preparation for faith. Paul reverses the relation in which Faith and Law were set by the Judaists. They brought in the Law to perfect the unfinished work of faith (Gal_3:3): he made it preliminary and pro paedeutic. What they gave out for more advanced doctrine, he treats as the "weak rudiments," belonging to the infancy of the sons of God. {Gal_4:1-11} Up to this point, however, the Mosaic law has been considered chiefly in a negative way, as a foil to the Covenant of grace. The Apostle has now to treat of its nature more positively and explicitly, first indeed in contrast with the promise (Gal_3:19-20); and secondly, in its co-operation with the promise (Gal_3:22-24). Gal_3:21 is the transition from the first to the second of these conceptions.

I. "For the sake of the transgressions (committed against it) the law was added." The Promise, let us remember, was complete in itself. Its testament of grace was sealed and delivered ages before the Mosaic legislation, which could not therefore retract or modify it. The Law was "superadded," as something over and above, attached to the former revelation for a subsidiary purpose lying outside the proper scope of the Promise. What then was this purpose?

1. For the sake of transgressions. In other words, the object of the law of Moses was to develop sin. This is not the whole of the Apostles answer; but it is the key to his explanation. This design of the Mosaic revelation determined its form and character. Here is the standpoint from which we are to estimate its working, and its relation to the kingdom of grace. The saying of Rom_5:20 is Pauls commentary upon this sentence: "The law came in by the way, in order that the trespass (of Adam) might multiply." The same necessity is expressed in the paradox of 1Co_15:56 : "The strength of sin is the law."

This enigma, as a psychological question, is resolved by the Apostle in Rom_7:13-24. The law acts as a spur and provocative, rousing the power of sin to conscious activity. However good in itself, coming into contact with mans evil flesh, its promulgation is followed inevitably by transgression. Its commands are so many occasions for sin to come into action, to exhibit and confirm its power. So that the Law practically assumes the same relation to sin as that in which the Promise stands to righteousness and life. In its union with the law our sinful nature perpetually "brings forth fruit unto death." And this mournful result God certainly contemplated when He gave the Law of Moses.

But are we compelled to out so harsh a sense on the Apostles words? May we not say that the Law was imposed in order to restrain sin, to keep it within bounds? Some excellent interpreters read the verse in this way. It is quite true that, in respect of public morals and the outward manifestations of evil, the Jewish law acted beneficially, as a bridle upon the sinful passions. But this is beside the mark. The Apostle is thinking only of inward righteousness, that which avails before God. The wording of the clause altogether excludes the milder interpretation. For the sake of (χαριν, Latin gratia) signifies promotion, not prevention. And the word transgression, by its Pauline and Jewish usage, compels us to this view. Transgression presupposes law. It is the specific form which sin takes under law-the reaction of sin against law. What was before a latent tendency, a bias of disposition, now starts to light as a flagrant, guilty fact. By bringing about repeated transgressions the Law reveals the true nature of sin, so that it "becomes exceeding sinful." It does not make matters worse; but it shows how bad they really are. It aggravates the disease, in order to bring it to a crisis. And this is a necessary step towards the cure.

2. The Law of Moses was therefore a provisional dispensation, -"added until the Seed should come to whom the promise hath been made." Its object was to make itself superfluous. It "is not, made for a righteous man; but for the lawless and unruly". {1Ti_1:9} Like the discipline and drill of a strictly governed boyhood, it was calculated to produce a certain effect on the moral nature, after the attainment of which it was no longer needed and its continuance would be injurious. The essential part of this effect lay, however, not so much in the outward regularity it imposed, as in the inner repugnancy excited by it, the consciousness of sin unsubdued and defiant. By its operation on the conscience the Law taught man his need of redemption. It thus prepared the platform for the work of Grace. The Promise had been given. The coming of the Covenant-heir was assured. But its fulfilment was far off. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise,"-and yet it was two thousand years before "Abrahams seed" came to birth. The degeneracy of the patriarchs children in the third and fourth generation showed how little the earlier heirs of the Promise were capable of receiving it. A thousand years later, when the Covenant was renewed with David, the ancient predictions seemed at last nearing their fulfilment. But no; the times were still unripe; the human conscience but half-disciplined. The bright dawn of the Davidic monarchy was overclouded. The legal yoke is made more burdensome; sore chastisements fall on the chosen people, marked out for suffering as well as honour. Prophecy has many lessons yet to inculcate. The worlds education for Christ has another millennium to run.

Nor when He came, did "the Son of man find faith in the earth"! The people of the Law had no sooner seen than they hated "Him to whom the law and the prophets gave witness." Yet, strangely enough, the very manner of their rejection showed how complete was the preparation for His coming. Two features, rarely united, marked the ethical condition of the Jewish people at this time-an intense moral consciousness, and a deep moral perversion; reverence for the Divine law, combined with an alienation from its spirit. The chapter of Pauls autobiography to which we have so often referred {Rom_7:7-24} is typical of the better mind of Judaism. It is the ne plus ultra of self-condemnation. The consciousness of sin in mankind has ripened.

3. And further, the Law of Moses revealed Gods will in a veiled and accommodated fashion, while the Promise and the Gospel are its direct emanations. This is the inference which we draw from Gal_3:19-20.

We are well aware of the extreme difficulty of this passage. Gal_3:20 has received, it is computed, some four hundred and thirty distinct interpretations. Of all the "hard things our beloved brother Paul" has written, this is the very hardest. The words which make up the sentence are simple and familiar; and yet in their combination most enigmatic. And it stands in the midst of a paragraph among the most interesting and important that the Apostle ever wrote.

Let us look first at the latter clause of Gal_3:19 : "ordained through angels, in the hand (i.e., by means) of a mediator." These circumstances, as the orthodox Jew supposed, enhanced the glory of the Law. The pomp and formality under which Mosaism was ushered in, the presence of the angelic host to whose agency the terrific manifestations attending the Law-giving were referred, impressed the popular mind with a sense of the incomparable sacredness of the Sinaitic revelation. It was this assumption which gave its force to the climax of Stephens speech, of which we hear an echo in these words of Paul: "who received the law at the disposition of angels-and have not kept it!" The simplicity and informality of the Divine communion with Abraham, and again of Christs appearance in the world and His intercourse with men, afford a striking contrast to all this.

More is hinted than is expressly said in Scripture of the part taken by the angels in the Law-giving. Deu_33:2 and Psa_68:17 give the most definite indications of the ancient faith of Israel on this point. But "the Angel of the Lord" is a familiar figure of Old Testament revelation. In Hebrew thought impressive physical phenomena were commonly associated with the presence of spiritual agents. The language of Heb_1:7; Heb_2:2 endorses this belief, which in no way conflicts with natural science, and is in keeping with the Christian faith.

But while such intermediacy, from the Jewish standpoint, increased the splendour and authority of the Law, believers in Christ had learned to look at the matter otherwise. A revelation "administered through angels, " spoke to them of a God distant and obscured, of a people unfit for access to His presence. This is plainly intimated in the added clause, "by means of a mediator, "- a title commonly given to Moses, and recalling the entreaty Exo_20:19; Deu_5:22-28 : "The people said, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die." These are the words of sinful men, receiving a law given, as the Apostle has just declared, on purpose to convict them of their sins. The form of the Mosaic revelation tended therefore in reality not to exalt the Law, but to exhibit its difference from the Promise and the distance at which it placed men from God.

The same thought is expressed, as Bishop Lightfoot aptly shows, by the figure of "the veil on Moses face," which Paul employs with so much felicity in 2Co_3:13-18. In the external glory of the Sinaitic law-giving, as on the illuminated face of the Law-giver, there was a fading brightness, a visible lustre concealing its imperfect and transitory character. The theophanies of the Old Covenant were a magnificent veil, hiding while they revealed. Under the Law, angels, Moses came between God and man. It was God who in His own grace conveyed the promise to justified Abraham (Gal_3:18).

The Law employed a mediator; the Promise did not (Gal_3:19). With this contrast in our minds we approach Gal_3:20. On the other side of it (Gal_3:21), we find Law and Promise again in sharp antithesis. The same antithesis runs through the intervening sentence. The two clauses of Gal_3:20 belong to the Law and Promise respectively. "Now a mediator is not of one": that is an axiom which holds good of the Law. "But God is one": this glorious truth, the first article of Israels creed, applies to the Promise. Where "a mediator" is necessary, unity is wanting, -not simply in a numerical, but in a moral sense, as matter of feeling and of aim. There are separate interests, discordant views to be consulted. This was true of Mosaism. Although in substance "holy and just and good," it was by no means purely Divine. It was not the absolute religion. Not only was it defective; it contained, in the judgment of Christ, positive elements of wrong, precepts given "for the hardness of mens hearts." It largely consisted of "carnal ordinances, imposed till the time of rectification". {Heb_9:10} The theocratic legislation of the Pentateuch is lacking in the unity and consistency of a perfect revelation. Its disclosures of God were refracted in a manifest degree by the atmosphere through which they passed.

"But God is one." Here again the unity is moral and essential-of character and action, rather than of number. In the Promise God spoke immediately and for Himself. There was no screen to intercept the view of faith, no go-between like Moses, with God on the mountaintop shrouded in thunder-clouds and the people terrified or wantoning far below. Of all differences between the Abrahamic and Judaic types of piety this was the chief. The man of Abrahams faith sees God in His unity. The Legalist gets his religion at second-hand, mixed with un-divine elements. He believes that there is one God; but his hold upon the truth is formal. There is no unity, no simplicity of faith in his conception of God. He projects on to the Divine image confusing shadows of human imperfection.

God is one: this great article of faith was the foundation of Israels life. It forms the first sentence of the Shema, the "Hear, O Israel," {Deu_6:4-9} which every pious Jew repeats twice a day, and which in literal obedience to the Lawgivers words he fixes above his house-door, and binds upon his arm and brow at the time of prayer. Three times besides has the Apostle quoted this sentence. The first of these passages, Rom_3:29-30, {Comp. 1Co_8:6; 1Ti_2:5; also Mar_12:29-30; Jam_2:19} may help us to understand its application here. In that place he employs it as a weapon against Jewish exclusiveness. If there is but "one God," he argues, "there can be only one way of justification, for Jew and Gentile alike." The inference drawn here is even more bold and singular. There is "one God," who appeared in His proper character in the Covenant with Abraham. If the Law of Moses gives us a conception of His nature in any wise different from this, it is because other and lower elements found a place in it. Through the whole course of revelation there is one God-manifest to Abraham, veiled in Mosaism, revealed again in His perfect image in "the face of Jesus Christ."

II. So far the Apostle has pursued the contrast between the systems of Law and Grace. When finally he has referred the latter rather than the former to the "one God," we naturally ask, "Is the Law then against the promises of God?" (Gal_3:21). Was the Legal dispensation a mere reaction, a retrogression from the Promise? This would be to push Pauls argument to an antinomian extreme: He hastens to protest.-"The law against the promises? Away with the thought." Not on the Apostles premises, but on those of his opponents, did this consequence ensue. It is they who set the two at variance, by trying to make law do the work of grace. "For if a law had been given that could bring men to life, righteousness would verily in that case have been of law" (Gal_3:21). That righteousness, and therefore life, is not of law, the Apostle has abundantly shown. {Gal_2:16; Gal_3:10-13} Had the Law provided some efficient means of its own for winning righteousness, there would then indeed have been a conflict between the two principles. As matters stand there is none. Law and Promise move on different planes. Their functions are distinct. Yet there is a connection between them. The design of the Law is to mediate between the Promise and its fulfilment. "The trespass" must be "multiplied," the knowledge of sin deepened, before Grace can do its office. The fever of sin has to come to its crisis, before the remedy can take effect. Law is therefore not the enemy, but the minister of Grace. It was charged with a purpose lying beyond itself. "Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness". {Rom_10:4}

1. For, in the first place, the law cuts men off from all other hope of salvation.

On the Judaistic hypothesis, "righteousness would have been of law." But quite on the contrary, "the Scripture shuts up everything under sin, that the promise might be given in the way of faith in Jesus Christ, to them that believe" (Gal_3:22). Condemnation inevitable, universal, was pronounced by the Divine word under the Law, not in order that men might remain crushed beneath its weight, but that, abandoning vain hopes of self-justification, they might find in Christ their true deliverer.

The Apostle is referring here to the general support of "the Scripture." His assertion embraces the whole teaching of the Old Testament concerning human sinfulness, embodied, for example, in the chain of citations drawn Rom_3:10-18. Wherever the man looking for legal justification turned, the Scripture met him with some new command which drove him back upon the sense of his moral helplessness. It fenced him in with prohibitions; it showered on him threatenings and reproaches; it besieged him in ever narrowing circles. And if he felt less the pressure of its outward burdens, all the more was he tormented by inward disharmony and self-accusation.

Now the judgment of Scripture is not uttered against this class of men or that, against this type of sin or that. Its impeachment sweeps the entire area of human life, sounding the depths of the heart, searching every avenue of thought and desire. It makes of the world one vast prison-house, with the Law for jailor, and mankind held fast in chains of sin, waiting for death. In this position the Apostle had found himself; {Rom_7:24-25; Rom_8:1-2} and in his own heart he saw a mirror of the world. "Every mouth was stopped, and all the world brought in guilty before God". {Rom_3:19} This condition he graphically describes in terms of his former experience, in Gal_3:23 : "Before faith came, under law we were kept in ward, being shut up unto the faith that was to be revealed." The Law was all the while standing guard over its subjects, watching and checking every attempt to escape, but intending to hand them over in due time to the charge of Faith. The Law posts its ordinances, like so many sentinels, round the prisoners cell. The cordon is complete. He tries again and again to break out; the iron circle will not yield. But deliverance will yet be his. The day of faith approaches. It dawned long ago in Abrahams Promise. Even now its light shines into his dungeon, and he hears the word of Jesus, "Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace." Law, the stern jailor, has after all been a good friend, if it has reserved him for this. It prevents the sinner escaping to a futile and illusive freedom.

In this dramatic fashion Paul shows how the Mosaic law by its ethical discipline prepared men for a life which by itself it was incapable of giving. Where Law has done its work well, it produces, as in the Apostles earlier experience, a profound sense of personal demerit, a tenderness of conscience, a contrition of heart which makes one ready thankfully to receive "the righteousness which is of God by faith." In every age and condition of life a like effect is wrought upon men who honestly strive to live up to an exacting moral standard. They confess their failure. They lose self-conceit. They grow "poor in spirit," willing to accept "the abundance of the gift of righteousness" in Jesus Christ.

Faith is trebly honoured here. It is the condition of the gift, the characteristic of its recipient (Gal_3:22; Gal_3:24), and the end for which he was put under the charge of Law (Gal_3:23). "To them that believe" is "given," as it was in foretaste to Abraham (Gal_3:6), a righteousness unearned, and bestowed on Christs account; {Gal_3:13; Rom_5:17-18} which brings with it the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, reserved in its conscious possession for Abrahams children in the faith of Christ. {Gal_3:14; Gal_4:4} These blessings form the commencement of that true life whose root is a spiritual union with Christ, and which reaches on to eternity. {Gal_2:20; Rom_5:21; Rom_6:23} Of such life the Law could impart nothing; but it taught men their need of it, and disposed them to accept it. This was the purpose of its institution. It was the forerunner, not the finisher, of Faith.

2. Paul makes use of a second figure to describe the office of the Law; under which he gives his final answer to the question of Gal_3:19. The metaphor of the jailor is exchanged for that of the tutor." The law hath been our παιδαγωγος for Christ." This Greek word (boy-leader) has no English equivalent; we have not the thing it represents. The "pedagogue" was a sort of nursery governor, -a confidential servant in the Greek household, commonly a slave, who had charge of the boy from his infancy, and was responsible for his oversight. In his food, his clothes, his home-lessons, his play, his walks-at every point the pedagogue was required to wait upon his young charge, and to control his movements. Amongst other offices, his tutor might have to conduct the boy to school; and it has been supposed that Paul is thinking of this duty, as though he meant, "The Law has been our pedagogue, to take us to Christ, our true teacher." But he adds, "That we might be justified of faith." The "tutor" of Gal_3:24 is parallel to the "guard" of the last verse; he represents a distinctly disciplinary influence.

This figure implies not like the last the imprisoned condition of the subject-but his childish, undeveloped state. This is an advance of thought. The Law was something more than a system of restraint and condemnation. It contained an element of progress. Under the tutelage of his pedagogue the boy is growing up to manhood. At the end of its term the Law will hand over its charge mature in capacity and equal to the responsibilities of faith. "If then the Law is a παιδαγωγος, it is not hostile to Grace, but its fellow-worker; but should it continue to hold us fast when Grace has come, then it would be hostile" (Chrysostom).

Although the highest function, that of "giving life," is denied to the Law, a worthy part is still assigned to it by the Apostle. It was "a tutor to lead men to Christ." Judaism was an education for Christianity. It prepared the world for the Redeemers coming. It drilled and moralised the religious youth of the human race. It broke up the fallow-ground of nature, and cleared a space in the weed-covered soil to receive the seed of the kingdom. Its moral regimen deepened the conviction of sin, while it multiplied its overt acts. Its ceremonial impressed on sensuous natures the idea of the Divine holiness; and its sacrificial rites gave definiteness and vividness to mens conceptions of the necessity of atonement, failing indeed to remove sin, but awakening the need and sustaining the hope of its removal. {Heb_10:1-18}

The Law of Moses has formed in the Jewish nation a type of humanity like no other in the world. "They dwell alone," said Balaam, "and shall not be reckoned amongst the nations." Disciplined for ages under their harsh "pedagogue," this wonderful people acquired a strength of moral fibre and a spiritual sensibility that prepared them to be the religious leaders of mankind. Israel has given us David and Isaiah, Paul and John. Christ above all was "born under law-of Davids seed according to flesh." The influence of Jewish minds at this present time on the worlds higher thought, whether for good or evil, is incalculable; and it penetrates everywhere. The Christian Church may with increased emphasis repeat Pauls anticipation, "What will the receiving of them be, but life from the dead!" They have a great service still to do for the Lord and for His Christ. It was well for them and for us that they have "borne the yoke in their youth."

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

3:19-22 Paul’s argument so far might lead his readers to believe that the law had no purpose. Here, however, Paul emphasizes the law’s proper role in order to correct false teaching about the law.

3:19 If people do not receive God’s inheritance through the law, why, then, was the law given? It was to show people their sins and make it clear that sinful actions are offenses against God. People cannot rely on their own goodness to save them, but must turn to God in faith (see Rom 3:19-20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:7-13). • until the coming of the child who was promised: See Gal 3:16. While the promise is permanent, the law was temporary. With Christ’s coming, the law was fulfilled (see Matt 5:17-20; cp. Matt 3:13-15; John 19:30) and God’s acceptance is based entirely on faith in Christ. • through angels: Deuteronomy 33:2 in the Greek version describes the Lord’s coming from Sinai “with myriads of holy ones, angels with him at his right hand.” See also Ps 68:17; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2. • Moses, who was the mediator: See Exod 20:19; Deut 5:24-27.

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

Gal 3:19. Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος;) Some use this punctuation, τί οὖν; ὁ νόμος, κ.τ.λ. Indeed τί οὖν is often put by itself; sometimes, however, the interrogation is given at length, τί οὖν φημι; 1Co 10:19: τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου; Rom 3:1. What then is [the use of] the law, i.e., one might say, was the law therefore given in vain?—τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν, because of transgressions) that they might be acknowledged and might gain strength. Transgressions committed by men are noticed not so much before, Rom 5:13, as after the giving of the law. The same word occurs at Rom 4:15, where see the note; and in the plural at Heb 9:15. The antithesis is continueth, Gal 3:10. The thing itself is explained at Gal 3:21-22: namely, all are “concluded under sin.”—ἐτέθη, it was put, given) He does not say, put instead of, substituted [for the promise]. Many have προσετέθη,[26] but ἐτέθη is more consistent with Gal 3:15.—ἜΛΘῌ, should come) comp. came, Gal 3:23.—τὸ σπέρμα, the seed) viz., believers of the New Testament, to whom is given the fulfilment of the promise; Gal 3:22.—ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, to whom the promise was made) or rather to whom God promised; comp. ἐπήγγελται, Rom 4:21; Heb 12:26.—ΔΙΑΤΑΓΕῚς, ordained) not ἐπιδιαταγεὶς;[27] comp. Gal 3:15, [ἐπιδιατάσσεται, addeth thereto any new ordinance].—διʼ ἀγγέλων, ἘΝ ΧΕΙΡῚ ΜΕΣΊΤΟΥ, by angels, in the hand of a mediator) A double mediation. Angels being the representatives of God, Heb 2:2: a mediator standing as representative of the people. God delegated the law to angels as something rather alien to Him and severe: He reserved the promise to Himself, and gave and dispensed it according to His own goodness. Moses was the mediator; hence it is frequently said, ביד משה, by the hand of Moses. We have the definition of a mediator, Deu 5:5. Moses, as a mediator, is quite different from Christ—the one keeps back [repels]—the other brings forward [attracts].

[26] Προσετέθη is read by AB (judging from silence) C, both Syr. Versions, etc. Ἐτέθη by GD(Δ) corrected later, fg Vulg. (posita est), Iren. 182, 318.—ED.

[27] Ordained as a new thing to supersede the promise.—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_3:19.[140] After Paul has shown in Gal_3:15-18 that the law does not abolish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might very naturally be met by the inquiry, According to this view, then, what sort of end is left to be served by the law in connection with the history of salvation? Hence he himself raises this question and answers it.

τί οὖν ὁ νόμος] sc. ἐστι: how does it stand therefore (if it is the case that the law does not abolish the covenant of promise) with the law? A general question, in which, to judge from the answer that follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which God gave the law. On the neuter τί, with a nominative following, comp. 1Co_3:5 (in the correct reading): τί οὖν ἐστιν Ἀπολλώς; and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 501 E; Bernhardy, p. 336 f. Following J. Cappellus, Schott (also Matthies, though undecidedly, Jatho and Wieseler) takes τί for διὰ τί; very unnecessarily, however, and in opposition to the constant use of the τί οὖν so frequently recurring in Pauls writings (Rom_3:1; Rom_4:1, et al.; comp. Gal_4:15).

τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη] for the sake of transgressions it was added; that is, in order that the transgressions of the law might be brought out as real, it was, after the covenant of promise was already in existence, superadded to the latter (παρεισῆλθεν, Rom_5:20). The law namely, because it gives occasion to the potency of sin in man to bring about in him all evil desire (Rom_7:5; Rom_7:8), and nevertheless is too weak as a counter-power to oppose this sinful development (Rom_8:3), is the δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας (1Co_15:56; and see Rom_7:7 ff.); but sinwhich, although existing since Adam (Rom_5:13), is yet increased by that provocation of the lawhas only come to assume the definite character of παράβασις in virtue of the existence of the law and its relation thereto (Rom_4:15). The same purpose of the law is expressed in Rom_5:20, but without the stricter definition of sin as παράβασις. Accordingly, τῶν παραβ. χάριν is not (with Wetstein) to be rationalized to this effect: Lex sine dubio eo consilio lata est, ut servaretur, ὑπακοῆς χάριν; vitio tamen hominum evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur. This is in itself correct (comp. Rom_7:12), but is irrelevant here, where the point in question is the position of the law in connection with the divine plan of salvation, the final aim of which is redemption. The real idea of the apostle is, that the emergence of sinsnamely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom_4:15), moral form of transgressionswhich the law brought about, was designed by God (who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave the law, and designed in fact as a mediate end in reference to the future redemption; for the evil was to become truly great, that it might nevertheless be outdone by grace (Rom_5:20). The result, which the law, according to experience, has on the whole effected, and by which it has proved itself the δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας (comp. also 2Co_3:6), could not be otherwise than the aim of God. Comp. Ritschl, p. 74 f.; Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Matthias (who, however, assumes the intentional appearance of an ambiguity), Stölting, and others; also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 75; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 110. Luther (1519) strikingly remarks: Ut remissio propter salutem, ita praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgressionem. Observe, further, the article before παραβ., which summarily comprehends, as having really that character, the transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the law; comp. Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul, u. Petr. p. 297. Others[141] consider that by τῶν παραβ. χάριν the recognition of sins is expressed as the aim of the law. So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis, Windischmann, and others; also Winer (ut manifestam redderet atque ita argueret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi contrahebant, culpam). But (1) this idea could not have been expressed by the mere τῶν παραβ. χάριν; for although χάριν is not always exclusively used in its original sense, for the sake of, in favour of, but may also be taken simply as on account of,[142] still, in order to be intelligible, Paul must have written τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν as signifying: in order to bring sins to recognition as transgressions. And (2) the point of the recognition of sin was entirely foreign to this passage; for in τῶν παραβ. χάριν Paul desires to call attention to the fact that the law, according to the divine plan, was intended to produce exactly the objective, actual (not merely the subjective) opposite of the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (comp. Gal_3:21-22). On account of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, ad coercendas transgressiones, is wholly to be rejected, because opposed to the context. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae, Semler, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Paulus, Rückert, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (in order to punish them more strictly); also Messner, Lehre d. Ap. p. 222, and Hauck, comp. Buhl; several, such as Grotius and Rückert, think that the inclination to Egyptian idolatry is chiefly referred to. This view is decidedly disposed of by the expression παραβάσεων, since ΠΑΡΑΒΆΣΕΙς as such could only come into existence with the law (Rom_4:15); previously there were sins, but no transgressions,a view with which Rom_5:14 does not conflict, because the matter in question there is the transgression of a quite definite, positive command of God. The two last interpretations are combined by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, following older expositors (comp. also Matthies),a course inconsistent with hermeneutical principles in general, and here in fact involving an amalgamation of two erroneous views.

προσετέθη] it was added, is not inconsistent with what was said in Gal_3:15, οὐδεὶς … ἐπιδιατάσσεται, because in the latter general proposition under ΟὐΔΕΊς third persons are thought of. The law, moreover, was not given as ἐπιδιαθήκη (see on Gal_3:15), but as another institution, which, far from being a novella to the διαθήκη, was only to be a temporary intermediate measure in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final fulfilment of the promise. See the sequel, and comp. Rom_5:20; Rom_10:4.

ἌΧΡΙς ΟὟ ἜΛΘΗ ΤῸ ΣΠΈΡΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.] terminus ad quem of the merely provisional duration of this added institute. But these words are neither to be connected, in disregard of their position, with διαταγείς (Hofmann), nor to be placed in a parenthesis; for the construction is not interrupted. As to ἌΧΡΙς ΟὟ ἜΛΘῌ, usque dum venerit, comp. on Rom_11:25. According to the general usage of the N.T. (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 198), the subjunctive, and not the optative (Matthiae, p. 1158), is used. Paul has not put ἄν, because there was no idea in his mind of any circumstances which could have hindered the event. See Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 62 C; Hermann, de part. ἄν, p. 110 ff.; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 291 ff. Comp. on 1Co_11:26.

τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγ.] that is, Christ, whose advent, according to Gal_3:16, necessarily brought with it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative, however, does not stand for εἰς ὅν (Winer, Usteri), but just as in Gal_3:16 : to whom the promise was made.

ἐπήγγελται] not promiserat (Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt, Hofmann), comp. Rom_4:21, Heb_12:26; but promissio facta est (2Ma_4:27), because thus it is not requisite to supply Θεός, and the expression corresponds very naturally with ἘῤῬΈΘΗΣΑΝ ΑἹ ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑΙ in Gal_3:16. Hence also it is superfluous to supply Ἡ ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ (Ewald).

ΔΙΑΤΑΓΕῚς ΔΙʼ ἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ ἘΝ Χ. ΜΕΣ.] the mode in which ὁ νόμος προσετέθη, or the form of this act: having been ordained through angels, etc. On διατάσσειν νόμον, comp. Hesiod, ἜΡΓ. 274. The simple ΤΆΣΣΕΙΝ ΝΌΜΟΝ is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg. p. 863 D. It means to ordain a law, that is, to issue it for obedience, not to arrange it for publication (Stölting), so that the angels would be described here as the diaskeuastai of the law,an idea which has no support anywhere, and would run counter to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Exo_31:18; Exo_32:16; Deu_9:10). As to the use of the aorist participle in the language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774; Bernhardy, p. 383. The tradition that the divine promulgation of the law took place amidst the ministry of angels, is first found in the LXX., Deu_33:2 (not in the original text); then in Heb_2:2, Act_7:38; Act_7:53, Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan theology. Comp. on Act_7:53; Delitzsch, on Heb_2:2. Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not know it or was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other traditional teachings, 1Co_10:4, 2Co_12:2), it is a mere mistaken evasion to explain διά as inter or coram (Calovius, Loesner, Morus), which would have ultimately to be referred to the idea by the mediation of (as 2Ti_2:2). The same remark applies to the view which looks upon the ἀγγέλων even as men, like Moses and Aaron (Zeger, and revived by Cassel, d. Mittler e. exeg. Versuch, 1855); Chrysostom left it optional to understand it either of priests or of angels. As to the monstrous amplifications which this tradition of the agency of the angels underwent at the hands of the later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. I. p. 309 f. Paul does not look upon the angels as authors of the law (as held by Schulthess, Voigtländer in Keil and Tzschirners Anal. IV. p. 139 ff., and Huth, Commentat. Altenb. 1854),a point which is certain from the whole view taken in biblical history of the law generally as divine (see the apostles own designation of the law as νόμος Θεοῦ, Rom_7:22; Rom_7:25), and as ΓΡΑΦΉ (vers. 10, 13, Gal_4:21 f., et al.), and here especially is all the more decidedly indicated by the use of the διά (and not ὙΠΌ), for every reader in fact conceived of the angels as ministering spirits of God (comp. LXX. Deu_33:2 : ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετʼ αὐτοῦ), who accompanied the Lord appearing in majesty; and consequently no one could attach any other sense to ΔΙΆ than ministerio angelorum, which is clear as the meaning in Heb_2:2 from διὰ τοῦ κυρίου in Gal_3:3.

ἘΝ ΧΕΙΡῚ ΜΕΣΊΤΟΥ[143]] For Moses received the tables of the law from God, and carried them down to the people. Thus in the legislation he was the middle person between the Giver of the law and its recipients; with the tables in his hand, he was Gods envoy to Israel, acting between the two parties. On account of this historical circumstance (Exo_31:18; Exo_32:15), ἐν χειρί is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of designating the mediation (בְּיַד), but quite literally: comp. Exo_32:15; Lev_26:46. In the N.T. the designation of Moses as μεσίτης forms the basis of the expression in Heb_8:6; Heb_9:15; Heb_12:24; and on the subject itself, comp. Act_7:38. This designation does not occur in the O.T. or in the Apocrypha; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator סרסור, אמצעי, also שליח. See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 738 f.; Wetstein, p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos. II. p. 678 f. A; and on the matter itself, Deu_5:5; also Joseph. Antt. iii. 5. 3. The better known and the more celebrated Moses was as mediator of the law (comp. Aboth R. Nath. i. 1, Legem, quam Deus Israelitis dedit, non nisi per manus Mosis dedit), the more decidedly must we reject every interpretation in which the ΜΕΣΊΤΗςnot more precisely defined by Paul, but presumed to have its historical reference universally familiaris not referred to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most of the Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; so also Beza, Lyra, Erasmus, Calvin, Pareus, Calovius, and others), who, following 1Ti_2:5, Heb_8:6; Heb_9:15; Heb_12:24, take the Mediator to be Christ,[144] but also to Schmieders view (nova interpr. Gal_3:19-20, Numburg. 1826), that an angel is intendedthe angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special duty of teaching Moses the law. Certainly the Rabbins speak of an angel of the law (he was called Jefifia; see Jalkut Rubeni, f. 107. 3); but this part of their teaching cannot be shown to have existed in the time of the apostles, nor can it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted by Schmieder (Exo_19:19 f., Exo_20:18, Exo_33:11; Num_12:5-8; Deu_5:4 f.; also Exo_33:18-23; Exo_40:35; Deu_33:2; Psa_68:18; Act_7:53; Mal_3:1). See also, in opposition to Schmieder,[145] especially Lücke in the Stud. u. Krit. p. 97 f.

The object for which Paul has added διαταγεὶς … μεσίτου, is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordinate position held by the law in comparison with that of the gospel or that of the promise, inasmuch as the former was ordained not directly by God, but through angels and a mediator[146] (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Estius, Semler, Rosenmüller, Tychsen, Flatt, Rückert, Usteri, de Wette, Baur, Ewald, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others; comp. also Olshausen, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77; Vogel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 530), but to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination. So Calvin and others, including Winer, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Matthias; comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol p. 284. It may be decisively urged in favour of the latter view, (1) that, if the mention of the angels was intended to suggest a lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher relation must have been distinctly expressed (as in Heb_2:2), or at least must have been quite definitely discoverable from the immediate context (by the addition of a μόνον perhaps, or the like). Regarded in themselves, the appearance of angels and the agency of angels (comp. also Gal_1:8) are always conceived as something majestic and glorifying,[147] even in respect to Christ (Mat_24:31; Mat_25:31; Joh_1:25; 1Ti_3:16, et al.), and especially in respect to the law (LXX. Deu_33:2; Act_7:38; Act_7:53), the bestowal of which was one of the high divine distinctions of Israel (Rom_9:4). Just as little can it be said (2) that ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου is a depreciatory statement, for in fact the gospel also is given ἘΝ ΧΕΙΡῚ ΜΕΣΊΤΟΥ; to which argument the objection cannot be made, that the Mediator of the gospel, as the Son of God, is far more exalted than the mediator of the law: for ἘΝ ΧΕΙΡῚ ΜΕΣΊΤΟΥ does not state at all what kind of mediator it was who intervened in the promulgation of the law, but leaves the dignity or lowliness of his person entirely out of view, and asserts only that a mediator was employed in the giving of the law; so that in respect of this relation regarded by itself there was no qualitative difference between the law and the gospel: both were mediated, given through the hand of a mediator. By way of comparison and contrast with the gospel, ἐν χειρὶ ἀνθρώπου or some such expression must have been used, whereby the mediation of the law would be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (3) it by no means formed a part of the plan and object of the apostle to depreciate the law as a less divine institution,a course which, besides being inconsistent with his recognition of the law elsewhere (Rom_7:12-25), would have been even unwise in dealing with zealots for the law; whereas it was in the highest degree appropriate to acknowledge the high dignity of the law as evinced in the majesty and solemn formality of its promulgation, and then to show that it had by no means cancelled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the covenant of promise, while the apostles opponents could not find any antagonism to that law. In opposition to these arguments, the appeal to ὁ Θεός, Gal_3:20 (Usteri, Schneckenburger, de Wette), has the less weight, because in ΠΡΟΣΕΤΈΘΗ and ΔΙΑΤΑΓΕΊς (Gal_3:19) God in fact is obviously the acting subject, and the promise also was expressed passively by ἐπήγγελται (without ΘΕΌς). According to Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 299 ff., Paul intends to express the pneumatic truth, that, in the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy of salvation was to be that of a mediator, viz. between promise and fulfilment. But if this were so, how wonderfully would Paul have concealed his thoughts! He must have said that this mediatorial position of the law exhibited itself in the form of its bestowal; for this in itself, and apart from any other intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as historically familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of the law. The law itself would not be placed by these attributes in the category of the μεσίτης. Nor is Stöltings view more worthy of acceptance, who, in ΔΙΑΤΑΓ. ΔΙʼ ἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ, detects the idea: in order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of Abraham (Heb_1:14), and explains ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου to mean that the law served as an instrument to the mediator for reconciling discordant parties with one another (and these parties are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles). These two ideas, which are only in a very indirect way compatible with the scope of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law to the gospel, or with history itself, could not have been found out by the readers, especially after Gal_3:18, and after τῶν παραβάσ. χάριν, and would have needed a more precise explanation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison with the history of the giving of the law, which was familiar to every reader, the two points could only be understood as reminiscences of the historical circumstances in question; and μεσίτης in particular could not be conceived as a reconciling mediator, but only in the sense conveyed in Act_7:38.

[140] On ver. 19, see Stölting, Beiträge z. Exegese d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 50 ff.

[141] Some unexegetically combine the two explanations, as Bengel: ut agnoscerentur et invalerescerent.

[142] Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 947, appropriately remarks: χάριν cum genitivo dictum: in gratiam alicuius, inde alicuius aut hominis aut rei causa significans, quamquam minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae Ammonii doctrina est, p. 53. Comp. 1Jn_3:12.

[143] μεσίτης is a word that belongs to the later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, et al.). Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 121. It occurs in the LXX only in Job_9:33.

[144] So also very recently Culmann, sum Verständn. der Worte Gal_3:20, Strassb. 1864.

[145] With whom Schneckenburger agrees. See on ver. 20.

[146] Luther, 1538: Lex est servorum vox, evangelium Domini. Hofmann: Paul gives his readers to understand that the event of the giving of the law was no fulfilment of the promise (see, however, on ver. 20). Bengel: God committed the law to angels quasi alienius quiddam et severius. Buhl confines himself to saying that Paul wished to represent the difference between the mode of revelation in the case of the law and that of the covenant of promise. But the question regarding the purpose of this representation as bearing on the apostles argument thus remains unanswered. According to Hilgenfeld, Pauls intention was to detach as far as possible the origin of the law from the supreme God; and in this respect also he was the precursor of Gnosticism.

[147] Hence we must not say with Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 280, that the intention was to intimate that the giving of the law was not the absolute normal act of the divine economy.

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 3:19-22 . THE LAW WAS A TEMPORARY ENACTMENT ORDAINED TO DEAL WITH THE OFFENCES WHICH IT DENOUNCES UNTIL THE COMING OF THE PROMISED SEED. THE GOD FROM WHOM IT PROCEEDED WAS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, BUT HE PROMULGATED IT THROUGH ANGELS AND AN APPOINTED MEDIATOR TO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM AFTER THE FLESH, NOT TO THE ONE CHOSEN SEED. DID IT THEN CONTRAVENE HIS PROMISES? NAY VERILY. IF INDEED IT HAD BEEN CAPABLE OF QUICKENING LIFE, IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED NEW MEANS OF JUSTIFICATION: BUT WHAT IT REALLY DID WAS TO CONVICT ALL ALIKE OF SIN, THAT THE PROMISE MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON FAITH IN CHRIST. Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος . What function then had the Law, if it had absolutely no effect on God’s previous covenant with Abraham? τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν . Our versions render this because of transgressions , ignoring the Greek article. But there could obviously be no transgressions until the Law existed, however grievous the moral degradation. The real meaning is that it was added with a view to the offences which it specifies, thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the Law. Its design is gathered in short from its contents. The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments reveal their own purpose: they were enacted in order to repress the worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness. These sins prevailed before the Law, but by pronouncing them to be definite transgressions it called in the fear of God’s wrath to reinforce the weakness of the moral sense and educate man’s conscience. The same aspect of the Law is forcibly presented in 1Ti 1:9 . Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly .… Attention is in both concentrated on the moral Law to the exclusion of the sacrificial and ceremonial. ἄχρις οὗ . The alternative reading ἄχρις ἄν does not affect the sense. It is assumed on the strength of previous argument that the dispensation of the Law came to an end with the coming of Christ. By the gift of an indwelling spirit He emancipated His faithful disciples from allegiance to an outward Law. ἐπήγγελται : He ( i.e. , God) hath promised ( cf. Rom 4:21 , Heb 12:26 ). ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι never has a passive sense in the N.T. διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων . The N.T. refers three times to the interposition of angels in the promulgation of the Law: God’s intercourse with Moses through the angel of His presence was evidently a common topic in Jewish schools of theology. In Act 7:53 the fact is recorded by way of enhancing the authority of the Law; in Heb 2:2 it is contrasted with God’s revelation in His Son: here it is contrasted with God’s more familiar intercourse with Abraham. He drew nigh to God, and was called the friend of God : but at Sinai the people stood far off, and the Law was made known through the double intervention of angels and of a human mediator. ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου . The term μεσίτης was applied with the utmost latitude to any intermediate between two parties, whether it was the one great Mediator between God and man or any of the subordinate servants of God through whom He makes known His will to men or exercises His authority. The phrase ἐν χειρί defines its meaning here, for it implies that Moses was put in charge of the promulgation of the Law ( cf. Num 4:28 ; Num 4:37 in LXX), and was God’s appointed agent for the purpose. This interposition of a mediator between God and the people was a marked feature of distinction between the Sinaitic and the patriarchal dispensation.

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

19–22. The true place and purpose of the Law. It was subordinate to the promise, and preparatory, by developing the sense of sin

(Gal 3:19) (If the inheritance is by the Promise, not by the Law) What in that case is the essential character of the Law? It was added for the sake of the transgressions of it (i.e. it was to show the tendency of human nature), and was to last only until the Seed (Christ) should come, to Whom (as we saw) the promise has been made, being appointed (on God’s side) by the means of angels and (on man’s side) received in the hands of a mediator (Moses), (Gal 3:20) But (so far from a mediator being a good thing) a mediator suggests a lack of unity, while God is Unity itself. What requires a mediator therefore does not wholly correspond to God’s nature, (Gal 3:21) Is the Law therefore against the many promises that God has given? God forbid (this would imply a contradiction in God Himself). As law nothing can be better, for if a law had ever been given which could have made men live, righteousness would indeed have been in the Law. (Gal 3:22) But (so far is it from bringing righteousness that) the scripture in the passage already quoted enclosed all the results of the Law under sin, in order that the promise to Abraham should, as a result of faith in Jesus Christ, be given to those who have faith, the Law thus ultimately not being opposed to the promises, but actually securing their fulfilment.

19. παραβάσεων χάριν. A curious text is given in G Irenint. Ambrosiaster by omitting χάριν and reading πράξεων: Quid ergo lex factorum? disposita per angelos in manu mediatoris posita est usque dum veniat etc.

19. τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; If the Law does not modify the disposition, i.e. the Promise, what therefore is its essential character and aim? For we may assume that it was not given superfluously, or as Luther puts it: “When we teach that a man is justified without the Law and works, then doth this question necessarily follow: If the Law do not justify, why was it given?”

τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη. παραβ., Rom 2:23; Rom 4:15; Rom 5:14; 1Ti 2:14; Heb 2:2; Heb 9:15[105]. παραβάτης Gal 2:18. The article is probably possessive, i.e. “the transgressions of it.” For χάριν cf. 1Jn 3:12.

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

προσετέθη. Only here in St Paul’s writings, but frequent in Luke and Acts, twice in Matt, and once in Mk. and Heb.

The clause is patient of two interpretations:

(a) The transgressions of the promise made the Law necessary lest the promise should be lost. God gave the Law in order that the promise might be maintained.

(b) The Law was added to bring out before the conscience the transgressions of itself, to show the tendency of human nature as a dam shows the force of the stream. This is to be preferred as being certainly the meaning of the kindred passages, Rom 4:13-15; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:7-12 and as virtually stated in Gal 3:22 infra. Perhaps St Paul had already dwelt upon this in his oral teaching, for he assumes that his meaning will be intelligible to his readers. Here it was sufficient to indicate the cause of this temporary addition to the promise, which he says the Law was.

ἂχρις ἂν ἒλθῃ. W.H. marg. gives οὗ for ἄν, compare Gal 4:19. Cf. Gen 49:10, especially the Latin renderings there for Shiloh: semen quod ei repositum est (Tractatus de sanctis scripturis), and semen cui repositum est (Hilary).

Luther points out that St Paul’s statement is true both literally, i.e. the Law lasted only until Christ came, and spiritually, i.e. in the individual the Law does not reign in the conscience after Christ is admitted.

τὸ σπέρμα. Christ as already defined in Gal 3:16.

ᾦ ἐπήγγελται, “to whom He has made the promise.” So elsewhere in the N.T. where the perfect occurs, Rom 4:21; Heb 12:26[106].

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

διαταγεὶς κ.τ.λ. The clause is added to show the inferiority of the Law to the Promise. The Promise was given directly by God to Abraham; the Law was given indirectly, and indeed doubly so, (a) by means of angels, (b) through Moses.

Another reason for the addition of the clause has been found. It enhances in the mind of the reader the dignity of the Law and the solemnity of its ordination, as though “the glory of the Law glorified the glory of the promise.” But St Paul is here rather belittling the Law than magnifying the promise, and he is about to point out the inferiority of a mediator.

διαταγ. “appointed” as in 1Co 7:17; 1Co 16:1. Probably in the technical sense mentioned in the note on ἐπιδιατάσσεται, Gal 3:15. The tense is synchronous with προσετέθη. Ramsay (Gal. p. 381) strangely thinks that it marks a further step after προσετέθη.

διʼ ἀγγέλων. The earliest mention of angels as the media through whom the Law was given to Moses appears to be Jubilees I. 27 (where see Charles): “and He said to the angel of the presence [perhaps Michael]: ‘Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity.’ ” Compare Josephus, Ant. XV. 5. 3 (§ 136) ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις διʼ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθότων. So also Act 7:53; Heb 2:2. The mention of angels in Deu 33:2 in connexion with the giving of the Law, especially in the LXX. where they are said to have been on the right hand of the LORD, marks an earlier stage in the doctrine. Luther expresses the thought of our passage when he writes, “The Law is the voice of the servants, but the Gospel is the voice of the Lord Himself.”

ἐν χειρὶ. Hardly the common Hebraism (“by the hand of” = “by”) employed to avoid the repetition of διά. It suggests the reception by Moses of the tables into his hands.

μεσίτου, Gal 3:20, 1Ti 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24; Job 9:33[107]: cf. μεσιτεύω Heb 6:17[108]. In Test. XII. Patr., Daniel 6 the angel that intercedes for Israel is called “the mediator between God and men” (μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων), but in our Epistle the word evidently refers to Moses, as in the Assumption of Moses, i. 14, iii. 12. St Paul, that is to say, regards the angels as media, not as mediators; as taking no active part in praying or proclaiming. Thus a second medium is employed between God and Israel, first angels as representing God, and then Moses as representing the people (cf. Deu 5:5).

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

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

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

Commanded and given, or proclaimed.

An objection which riseth of the former answer: If the inheritance be not by the Law (at the least in part) then why was the Law given, after that the promise was made? Therefore saith the Apostle, to reprove men of sin, and so teach them to look unto Christ, in whom at length that promise of saving all people together should be fulfilled, and not that the Law was given to justify men.

That men might understand, by discovering of their sins, by the only grace of God, which he revealed to Abraham, and that in Christ.

Until the partition wall was broken down, and that full seed sprang up, framed of two peoples, both of Jews and Gentiles: for by this word Seed, we may not understand, Christ alone by himself, but coupled and joined together with his body.

A confirmation of the former answer taken from the manner and form of giving the Law: for it was given by Angels, striking a great terror into all, and by Moses a Mediator coming between. Now they that are one, need no Mediator, but they that are twain at the least, and that are at variance one with another. Therefore the Law itself and the Mediator, were witnesses of the wrath of God, and not that God would by this means reconcile men to himself, and abolish the promise, or add the Law unto the promise.

By the service and ministry.

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

"Wherefore then serveth the law?" as it is of no avail for justification, is it either useless, or contrary to the covenant of God? [CALVIN].

added--to the original covenant of promise. This is not inconsistent with Gal 3:15, "No man addeth thereto"; for there the kind of addition meant, and therefore denied, is one that would add new conditions, inconsistent with the grace of the covenant of promise. The law, though misunderstood by the Judaizers as doing so, was really added for a different purpose, namely, "because of (or as the Greek, 'for the sake of') the transgressions," that is, to bring out into clearer view the transgressions of it (Rom 7:7-9); to make men more fully conscious of their "sins," by being perceived as transgressions of the law, and so to make them long for the promised Saviour. This accords with Gal 3:23-24; Rom 4:15. The meaning can hardly be "to check transgressions," for the law rather stimulates the corrupt heart to disobey it (Rom 5:20; Rom 7:13).

till the seed--during the period up to the time when the seed came. The law was a preparatory dispensation for the Jewish nation (Rom 5:20; Greek, "the law came in additionally and incidentally"), intervening between the promise and its fulfilment in Christ.

come--(Compare "faith came," Gal 3:23).

the promise-- (Rom 4:21).

ordained--Greek, "constituted" or "disposed."

by angels--as the instrumental enactors of the law [ALFORD] God delegated the law to angels as something rather alien to Him and severe (Act 7:53; Heb 2:2-3; compare Deu 33:2, "He came with ten thousands of saints," that is, angels, Psa 68:17). He reserved "the promise" to Himself and dispensed it according to His own goodness.

in the hand of a mediator--namely, Moses. Deu 5:5, "I stood between the Lord and you": the very definition of a mediator. Hence the phrase often recurs, "By the hand of Moses." In the giving of the law, the "angels" were representatives of God; Moses, as mediator, represented the people.

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 19. Wherefore then serveth the law?] If the law does not annul the Abrahamic covenant, and cannot confer salvation on its votaries, why did God give it? This was a very natural objection, and must arise in the mind of any Jew who had paid attention to the apostle's reasoning.

It was added because of transgressions] It was given that we might know our sinfulness, and the need we stood in of the mercy of God. The law is the right line, the straight edge, that determines the obliquity of our conduct. See Clarke on Ro 4:15; and especially See Clarke on Ro 5:20, where this subject is largely discussed, and the figure explained.

Till the seed should come] The law was to be in force till the advent of the Messiah. After that it was to cease.

It was ordained by angels] The ministry of angels was certainly used in giving the law; see Ps 68:17; Ac 7:53; and Heb 2:2; but they were only instruments for transmitting; Moses was the mediator between God and the people, De 5:5.

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

When we are told that the law has no influence in obtaining justification, various suggestions immediately arise, that it must be either useless, or opposed to God’s covenant, or something of that sort. Nay, it might occur, why should we not say of the law, what Jeremiah says of the New Testament, (Jeremiah 31:31,) that it was given at a later period, in order to supply the weakness of the former doctrine? Objections of this kind must be answered, if Paul wished to satisfy the Galatians. First, then, he inquires, — what is the use of the law? Having come after the promise, it appears to have been intended to supply its defects; and there was room at least for doubting, whether the promise would have been effectual, if it had not been aided by the law. Let it be observed, that Paul does not speak of the moral law only, but of everything connected with the office held by Moses. That office, which was peculiar to Moses, consisted in laying down a rule of life and ceremonies to be observed in the worship of God, and in afterwards adding promises and threatenings. Many promises, no doubt, relating to the free mercy of God and to Christ, are to be found in his writings; and these promises belong to faith. But this must be viewed as accidental, and altogether foreign to the inquiry, so far as a comparison is made between the law and the doctrine of grace. Let it be remembered, that the amount of the question is this: When a promise had been made, why did Moses afterwards add that new condition, “If a man do, he shall live in them;” and, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them?” (Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 27:26.) Was it to produce something better and more perfect?

19. Because of transgressions. The law has manifold uses, but Paul confines himself to that which bears on his present subject. He did not propose to inquire in how many ways the law is of advantage to men. It is necessary to put readers on their guard on this point; for very many, I find, have fallen into the mistake of acknowledging no other advantage belonging to the law, but what is expressed in this passage. Paul himself elsewhere speaks of the precepts of the law as profitable for doctrine and exhortations. (2 Timothy 3:16.) The definition here given of the use of the law is not complete, and those who refuse to make any other acknowledgment in favor of the law do wrong. Now, what is the import of the phrase, because of transgressions? It agrees with the saying of philosophers, that “The law was made for restraining evil-doers,” and with the old proverb, “From bad manners have sprung good laws.” But Paul’s meaning is more extensive than the words may seem to convey. He means that the law was published in order to make known transgressions, and in this way to compel men to acknowledge their guilt. As men naturally are too ready to excuse themselves, so, until they are roused by the law, their consciences are asleep.

“Until the law,” says Paul, “sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.” (Romans 5:13.)

The law came and roused the sleepers, for this is the true preparation for Christ. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20.) Why?

“That Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans 7:13.)

Thus, “the law was added because of transgressions,” in order to reveal their true character, or, as he tells the Romans, that it might make them to abound. (Romans 5:20.)

This passage has tortured the ingenuity of Origen, but to no purpose. If God summon consciences to his tribunal, that those qualities in their transgression, which would otherwise give them pleasure, may humble them by a conviction of guilt, — if he shake off the listlessness which overwhelmed all dread of his judgment-seat, — if he drag to light; sin, which lurked like a thief in the den of hypocrisy, — what is there in all this that can be reckoned absurd? But it may be objected: “As the law is the rule of a devout and holy life, why is it said to be added ‘because of transgressions,’ rather than ‘because of obedience?’” I answer, however much it may point out true righteousness, yet, owing to the corruption of our nature, its instruction tends only to increase transgressions, until the Spirit of regeneration come, who writes it on the heart; and that Spirit is not given by the law, but is received by faith. This saying of Paul, let the reader remember, is not of a philosophical or political character, but expresses a purpose of the law, with which the world had been always unacquainted.

Till the seed should come. If it has respect to seed, it must be to that on which the blessing has been pronounced, and therefore it does not interfere with the promise. The word till, (ἄχρις οὗ,) signifies so long as the seed is expected: and hence it follows, that it must have been intended to occupy not the highest, but a subordinate rank. It was given in order to rouse men to the expectation of Christ. But was it necessary that it should last only until the coming of Christ? For if so, it follows that it is now abolished. The whole of that administration, I reply, was temporal, and was given for the purpose of preserving among the ancient people an attachment to the faith of Christ. And yet I do not admit that, by the coming of Christ, the whole law was abolished. The apostle did not intend this, but merely that the mode of administration, which for a time had been introduced, must receive its accomplishment in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the promise. But on this subject we shall have occasion to speak more fully afterwards.

Ordained by angels. The circumstance, that it was delivered through angels, tends to the commendation of the law. This is declared by Stephen (Acts 7:53) also, who says, that they had “received the law, (εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων,) into the dispositions of angels.” The interpretation given by some, that Moses and Aaron, and the priests, are the angels here meant, is more ingenious than solid. Nor is it wonderful that angels, by whom God bestows on us some of the smallest of his blessings, should have been intrusted also with this office of attending as witnesses at the promulgation of the law.

In the hand of a Mediator Hand usually signifies ministration; but as angels were ministers in giving the law, I consider “the hand of the Mediator” to denote the highest rank of service. The Mediator was at the head of the embassy, and angels were united with him as his companions. Some apply this expression to Moses, as marking a comparison between Moses and Christ; but I agree rather with the ancient expositors, who apply it to Christ himself. This view, it will be found, agrees better with the context, though I differ from the ancients likewise as to the meaning of the word. Mediator does not, as they imagine, signify here one who makes reconciliation, which it does in these words,

“There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Timothy 2:5,)

— but an ambassador employed in promulgating a law.

We are thus to understand, that, since the beginning of the world, God has held no intercourse with men, but through the agency of his eternal Wisdom or Son. Hence Peter says, that the holy prophets spake by the “Spirit of Christ,” (1 Peter 1:11,) and Paul makes him the leader of the people in the wilderness. (1 Corinthians 10:4.) And certainly the Angel who appeared to Moses, (Exodus 3:2,) can be no other person; for he claims to himself the peculiar and essential name of God, which is never applied to creatures. As he is the Mediator of reconciliation, by whom we are accepted of God, — the Mediator of intercession, who opens up for us a way to “call on the Father,” (1 Peter 1:17,) — so he has always been the Mediator of all doctrine, because by him God has always revealed himself to men. And this he intended to state expressly, for the purpose of informing the Galatians, that he who is the foundation of the covenant of grace, held also the highest rank in the giving of the law.

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.

(19) Wherefore then serveth the law?—Literally, What then is the Law? What is its object or function? If it did not affect the promise, what did it do? The Apostle proceeds to answer this question.

It was added.—It was not a part of the original scheme, but came in as a sort of marginal addition. It was, as it were, a parenthesis in the design of Providence. The direct line of God’s dealings with man ran through the promise and its fulfilment. The Law came in by the way.

Because of transgressions.—It has been usual to give to this one of two opposite interpretations, to make it mean (1) to check or put down transgressions; (2) to multiply and increase transgressions, as in Rom_5:20. The expression seems wide enough to cover both ideas. The Law was given “because of transgressions:” i.e., it had its object in transgressions. Its original purpose was to make them known, and by imposing a penalty to check them; its real effect was to provoke and enhance them. The expression “because of transgressions” leaves it ambiguous which of these points is meant, or rather, it includes them all.

Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.—By “the seed” is meant, as above, in Gal_3:16, Christ, the Messiah. The promise is said to have been made to Him in whom it is fulfilled, just as, in Gal_3:14, Christians are said to “receive the promise”—i.e., the fulfilment of the promise “of the Spirit.”

Ordained by angels.—The idea of angels having had a share in the giving of the Law appears in Deu_33:2 : “The Lord came from Sinai . . . He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints.” For “saints” the LXX. substitutes, in the next verse, “angels.” Similar allusions are found at the end of St. Stephen’s speech (Act_7:53): “Who have received the law by the disposition (as ordinances) of angels, and have not kept it;” and in Heb_2:2 : “If the word spoken by (through) angels was stedfast.” In this last instance, as in the present passage, the ministration of angels employed in it is quoted as showing the inferiority of the Law to the Gospel. In St. Stephen’s speech and in Josephus (Ant. xv. 5, 3) the same ministration is appealed to as enhancing the dignity of the Law. The different point of view is natural enough, according as the subject is regarded from the side of man or from the side of God.

In the hand of a mediator.—Through the instrumentality of a third person, distinct from the contracting parties—i.e., in this case, Moses. The term “mediator” was commonly applied to Moses in the Rabbinical writings, and appears to be hinted at in Heb_8:6, where our Lord is spoken of as “a mediator of a better covenant.” Many of the fathers, following Origen, took the mediator here to be Christ, and were thus thrown out in their interpretation of the whole passage.

(19, 20) If such was not the function of the Law—if it had no power to modify the promise—what was its true function? It was a sort of measure of police. Its object was to deal with transgressions. It was also a temporary measure, of force only until it should be superseded by the coming of the Messiah. Unlike the promise, too, it was a contract. It was given by a mediator—that is, a person acting between two parties. Two parties were involved, with rigid conditions binding them both. On the other hand, the promise was given unconditionally by the sole act of God.

In stating the true function of the Law, the Apostle brings out its inferiority to the promise in four respects. (1) It dealt with sins, not with holiness; (2) it was temporary and transitory; (3) it was given, not directly, but indirectly, through the double mediation of the angels and of Moses; (4) it was conditional, and not like the promise, unconditional. It depended upon the fallible action of man, and not only upon the infallible word of God.

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

19–29. The Purpose and Use of the Law in relation to the Justification of the Sinner

19. If then the promise is not affected by the law, so that no new condition of justification is imposed by it, the question naturally arises, ‘Why was the law given?’ To this the Apostle has an answer ready. It was not given to limit, much less to supersede the promise. The promise and the law are like two circles, which touch, but do not intersect each other: each perfect of its kind, because both alike Divine in their origin. But in answering the question which he has anticipated, St Paul shews the inferiority of the law in several particulars to the earlier and ‘better covenant’ (Heb_8:6). (1) The law condemns: it cannot give life, because no man can fulfil its conditions. It provokes transgression, convinces of sin, and denounces punishment. (2) It was superadded as a parenthetical and temporary dispensation, commencing with the national life of the Jewish people, and terminating with the Advent of the Seed to whom the promise was given. (3) It was not delivered immediately, like the promises to Abraham, but mediately by Moses in the presence of Angels as attesting witnesses. (4) It was a contract between God and man, life depending on the fulfilment of its terms, and was therefore conditional, and not absolute like the promise.

it was added] Yet not so as to interfere with the promise. If any one man had succeeded in rendering perfect obedience to the law, he would have been justified, no less than they to whom the righteousness of Another was imputed by faith.

because of transgressions] Dismissing the explanations, ‘to check’ or ‘to punish’ transgressions, we may make St Paul his own interpreter. In Rom_5:20 he says that the law ‘intervened that the offence might abound’; in Rom_7:13, that the commandment was given in order that sin ‘might be shewn to be sin … that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.’ Nay, he testifies that himself had not known sin ‘except through the law’ (Rom_7:7), for ‘through the law is the knowledge of sin’. And yet further, ‘the strength of sin is the law’ (1Co_15:56). From a comparison of these and other passages we infer that the purpose for which the law was given was not on the one hand the restraint or punishment of sin, nor on the other the increase of evil in the world. The evil existed already and was active. But its real nature, as an offence against God, rebellion against His authority, was not felt until that authority was expressed in the form of command and prohibition, that is, of law. The barrier which obstructs the force of the stream does not add to its force; it reveals the force by the resistance which it offers.

till the seed should come] This marks the limits of its operation.

the seed] That is, Christ. Surely it was by no accident that the term employed in the Abrahamic covenant is the same which is used in the yet earlier gospel (Gen_3:15). The seed of Abraham is the seed of the woman.

to whom the promise was made] Lit. has been made. The promise was not annulled by the law. It continued in force, awaiting its fulfilment. This seems to be expressed by the perfect tense.

and was ordained by angels] ‘having been enjoined, or enacted, by means of angels’. In Deu_33:2 we read, R.V. ‘The Lord came from Sinai, And rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.’ The expression, ‘with ten thousands of His saints’ is, literally, ‘from (amidst) myriads of holiness’, or ‘holy myriads.’ The R.V. ‘the ten thousands of holy ones’ is not a literal rendering, but a paraphrase denoting the angels; and though the LXX. render the clause, ‘with myriads of Kades’, they add (apparently from a different Hebrew text), ‘on His right angels (were) with Him’. The older versions and ‘expositors generally agree in the common rendering’. Lightfoot. That angels were present as attesting witnesses at the giving of the law was a common opinion among the Rabbinic teachers, and allusion is made to it not only by St Paul in this passage, but by St Stephen (Act_7:53), by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. Gal_2:2), and by Josephus (Antt. xv. 5. 3). Regarded as the retinue of the Supreme Lawgiver, the angels by their presence added solemnity to the occasion. But that very presence emphasized the fact that the law was of the nature of a contract, conditional, not absolute, a transaction between two parties, not the spontaneous revelation of mercy by Him who ‘is One’.

by the hand of] A Hebraism nearly equivalent to, ‘by means of’ or simply ‘by’. It is so used frequently in the O.T., e.g. Num_4:37, when Moses and Aaron are said to have numbered the people ‘according to the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses[27]’. See Act_7:35.

[27] The LXX. translates, ‘by the voice of the Lord in the hand of Moses.’

a mediator] The noun thus rendered occurs in four other passages of the N. T. (1Ti_2:5; Heb_8:6; Heb_9:15; Heb_12:24), and in all of them refers to our Lord Jesus Christ. In the three latter He is expressly termed the Mediator of the new or better covenant. Here the mediator is associated with the first covenant. In the epistle to Timothy our Lord is a mediator ‘between God and man’. Here the mediator is between God and the people of Israel, i.e. of course, Moses. These considerations, together with a due regard to the general scope of the passage, lead to the rejection of the view that in this passage the Mediator is our Lord—indeed such a view may astonish us, though supported by such eminent names as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. Neither the noun nor the corresponding verb (see Heb_6:17) is found in the LXX., though its reference to Moses in the passage before us is confirmed by his own declaration, ‘The Lord our God made a covenant with you in Horeb.… I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the word of the Lord’, Deu_5:2; Deu_5:5. The ‘covenant’ was the law of the Ten Commandments.

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.

Wherefore why then serveth the law?.... If this be the case, might an objector say, why was the law given? what ends and purposes are to be served by it? of what use can it be? there had as good been no law at all, if the inheritance is not of it, and there is no justification by it. To which it is answered,

it was added because of transgressions; four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made with Abraham; it did not succeed it, nor take the place of it, and so make it null and void; but was over and above added unto it, for the sake of restraining transgressions; which had there been no law, men would not have been accountable for them; and they would have gone into them without fear, and with impunity; but the law was given, to lay a restraint on men, by forbidding such and such things, on pain of death; and also for the detecting, discovering, and making known transgressions, what they are, their nature and consequences; these the law charges men with, sets them before them, in their true light and proper colours; and convicts them of them, stops their mouths, and pronounces them guilty before God: moreover, this law entered in, over and above any other revelation God was pleased to make, "that the offence might abound", Rom 5:20 either that particular offence, the sin of Adam, the apostle is there speaking of; the heinous nature of which, its aggravated circumstances, and the justness of its imputation to his posterity, were more clearly discerned by this law; and so the Syriac version here renders it in the singular number,

, "because of transgression"; or all other offences and transgressions, which are increased through the multiplicity of precepts, and attended with more aggravating circumstances, than if no law was given, and more eagerly pursued after, through the prohibition of them; such being the corrupt nature of man, that the more anything is forbidden, the more desirous it is of it: add to all this, that the law was given for the punishing of transgressions, for which it curses, and threatens with death, and inflicts it on Christless sinners: hence it is clear there can be no justification by it, and yet it is not useless and insignificant:

till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made; either Christ the seed of the woman, and of Abraham, who was to come in the flesh, and is come; and to whom the grand promise of life, and all the promises of the covenant were made; not for himself, but for those he represented, and in whom they are all secure: until whose coming to finish transgression, and bring in everlasting righteousness, the law was to continue in the form in which, and the use for which it was added, and then to cease as the ministration of Moses; for through the coming of Christ it received its full accomplishment, and came to an end; the ceremonial law was utterly abolished, and the moral law ceased to be a covenant of works, though it continues a rule of walk and conversation; and the whole Mosaic economy was no more: or else the seed here intends the spiritual seed of Abraham; particularly among the Gentiles, to whom the promise of blessedness, of justification, and eternal life was made; and the sense be, that till such time that a generation of faithful men, of believers in Christ, should arise among the Gentiles, the law was to continue with the Jews; but when they should spring up, the middle wall of partition should be broken down, and Abraham's spiritual seed among Jews and Gentiles make up one body, one people, and be fellow heirs and partakers of the promise of God in Christ, through the Gospel:

and it was ordained by angels; not Moses and Aaron, and Joshua, as some say; for though Moses was concerned in the giving of the law, yet not Aaron nor Joshua, nor are any of them ever called angels; but the holy elect angels are here meant, the ten thousands of saints, or holy ones, God came to Mount Sinai with, and the Lord was among, in the holy place; see Deu 33:2 and so the Jews say (l) that the Lord appeared on Mount Sinai gloriously, , "with companies", or "troops of angels", to give the law to his people: and this may be said to be "ordained" by them, inasmuch as it might be written and spoken by them, as the instruments and ministers God made use of; for though the tables are said to be the work of God, and the writing the writing of God, and to be written with the finger of God, and he is said to speak all the words of it, yet this hinders not, but that all this might be done by the means of angels; who might be employed in disposing and fitting the stones in the form they were, and in writing the law upon them; hence it is said to be given by the disposition of angels, Act 7:53 and certain it is, that it was spoken by them, Heb 2:2 they forming in the air those articulate and audible sounds, when the law was delivered; who were also concerned in the thunderings and lightnings, and in the blowing of the trumpet, that waxed louder and louder at that time:

in the hand of a mediator; not Christ, as many interpreters, ancient and modern, have thought; for though he was present at the giving of the law, as appears from Act 7:38 and is the Mediator between God and man, and had the law in his hand, out of which it went forth as the lawgiver; and as the surety of his people has fulfilled it, and by so doing put an end to it, and delivered them from the curse and condemnation of it; yet he is the Mediator of the new and better covenant, not the ministration of death, but of life; and so Moses and Christ, the law and Gospel, the old and the new covenant, are continually opposed to each other; besides, the mediator here seems to be represented as inferior to the angels, and as receiving the law into his hands from them, by whom it was ordained; which to conceive of Christ, is very much to the demeaning and lessening of him. Moses is the mediator here meant, who stood between God and the people of Israel; not to make peace between them, but to show the word of God from him to them, and this at their own request; see Deu 5:5, and in his hand the tables of the law were, when he came down from the mount, and was a typical mediator of Christ. So the Jews say of him, that

"he was "a mediator" between them and God (m).''

(l) Targum in 1 Chron. xxix. 11. (m) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 136. 1, 2.

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

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Ver. 19. Because of transgressions] Which are discovered by the law. Sight of misery must go before sense of mercy. Lex, lux, the law is a light (saith Solomon), which lays all open, as 1Co 14:25, and threateneth destruction to transgressors.

And it was ordained, &c.] Therefore it is not to be disrespected, though we cannot attain eternal life by it.

In the hand of a mediator] That is, of Moses, who was a mediator of that communication of the law to the people, Exo 20:19. Christ is the only Mediator of expiation. And of Christ alone some take this text.

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.

Wherefore then serveth the law? - This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the Law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing; and is the Law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this, the apostle replies that the Law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator.

It was added - (προσετέθη prosetethē). It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement on the part of God for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that.

Because of transgressions - On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the Law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter people from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince people of it, and thus to be “ancillary” to, and preparatory to the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the Law of God as given to apostate man, and this use of the Law still exists. This effect of the Law is accomplished:

By showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.

(2)It shows us the nature and extent of transgression by showing us how far we have departed from it.

(3)It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus suited to reveal its true nature.

(4)It is suited to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is; see the notes at Rom 4:15; Rom 7:7-11.

(5)It thus shows its own inability to justify and save people, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead people to the cross of the Redeemer; see the note at Gal 3:24. At the same time,

The Law was given with reference to transgressions in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties.

When Paul says that the Law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the Law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes (Calvin), but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows people their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the Law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which people must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that Law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of people.

Till the seed should come ... - The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied; see Gal 3:16. It is not implied here that the Law would be of no use after that; but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should come, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing people the nature of transgression and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete and in many respects unintelligible until he came - as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save people, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying people, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven.

And it was ordained by angels - That is, the Law was ordained by angels. The word ordained here διαταγεὶς diatageis usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here that the Law was ordained by angels, see the note at Act 7:53. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the Law, but it was a common opinion among the Jews that the Law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion; compare Heb 2:2. The sentiment here is that the Law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels; an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the Law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man.

In the Septuagint Deu 33:2 there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is: “From his right hand went a fiery law for them.” The Septuagint renders this, “His angels with him on his right hand;” compare Josephus, Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the Law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels; Deu 33:2. The Hebrew is, “Yahweh came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paron, and he came (literally) with ten thousands of holiness;” that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads מרבבת קדשׁ mēribbot qodesh. By the holy myriads mentioned here what can be meant but “the angels”? The word “holy” in the Scriptures is not given to storms and winds and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings.

The same sentiment is found in Psa 68:17 - “The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary.” Does not this evidently imply that when he gave the Law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? see Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565-567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the Law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world, that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man.

In the hand - That is, under the direction, or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels or by their disposition, it was under the control of a Mediator Rosenmuller, however, and others suppose that this means simply by (per); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a Mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the Mediator here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the Law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation however will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word Mediator.

Of a Mediator - The word “Mediator” Μεσίτης Mesitēs means properly one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius, or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson (Lexicon), Chandler, and many others suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should he regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are:

(1) That the name Mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures.

(2) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament.

(3) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument, on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle’s reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the Law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him until he, the “promised seed,” should come.

(4) It is only by such an interpretation that the following “vexed” verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible.

These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the Law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For:

(1) It was given hundreds of years after the promise.

(2) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to, and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise.

(3) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that plan should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing that the Law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption.

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

Wherefore then serveth the law? Some might say: To what purpose was the law given? As if there could be no use of it unless it were available to justification.

It was added because of transgressions; it was (saith the apostle) given after the promise, not to supply something wanting as to justification, to prescribe some works that must be added; but either to restrain sin, 1Ti 1:9, or to show and discover sin, to make men see that they stood in need of Christ: see Rom 7:13.

Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made: till Christ the promised Seed should come, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom 10:4; upon whose coming the law contained in ordinances ceased. That Christ is here to be understood by the seed, is plain by the addition,

to whom the promise was made. Some here understand by the seed, Christ and the church, (which both make up Christ mystical), and interpret this text by Eph 2:14, till the Jews and Gentiles should be both made one. This law (he saith)

was ordained by angels. Luke, Act 7:38, speaks of the law as published by one angel: the apostle, Heb 2:2, calls it, the word spoken by angels. We read of no angels, Exo 19:20, nor of any of the saints; yet, Deu 33:2; Moses saith God came from Sinai, with ten thousand saints. The law was given either by the ministry of an angel, or by God attended with angels.

In the hand of a mediator; that is, (say some), under the power of Christ the Mediator; but by the mediator is rather to be understood Moses, which agreeth with Deu 5:5, where Moses telleth the Jews, that he stood between the Lord and them at that time, to show them the word of the Lord; nor is Christ any where called the Mediator of the old, but of the new testament, Heb 8:6; Heb 12:24.

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

Wherefore then serveth the Law? (ti oun oJ nomov); what then (or, why then) is the Law? The apostle is wont thus to introduce the statement of some objection or some question relative to the point in hand which requires consideration (cf. Rom_3:1 Rom_4:1) He wishes now to show that, while the Law was a Divine ordinance, it was yet not intended to supersede the previously ratified covenant, but rather to prepare for its being completely carried out. It was added because of transgressions (twn parabasewn carin proseteqh); on account of transgressions it was superadded. As carin denotes that so-and-so is done in consideration of this or that; this latter may be either some antecedent fact furnishing ground for subsequent action, as in 1Jn_3:12; Eph_3:1; Luk_7:47, or some prospective result, which the action signified in the verb is intended to forward, as Jud_1:16. Here it intimates that the Law was given from a regard to men"s sinful actions, with an implied contrast with the covenant of Christ"s gospel, which was concerned with men"s justification and benediction. The province of the Law is to expose sins, rebuke them, pronounce God"s curse upon them, coerce and restrain them by the discipline of a system of outward rites and ceremonies. The office of the Law, as dealing with sinners as continuing sinful, while unable to make them new creatures, is indicated by St. Paul in seiv 1Ti_1:9, where, after saying, "The Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners," he proceeds to add a catalogue of offenders chargeable with the grossest form of criminality; which furnishes a most apt illustration of the word paraba ("transgressions") which he here uses, and which marks sins in their most wilful and most condemnable character. What was spiritually the outcome of the Law"s action upon men"s sinful nature, in making their "sin exceeding sinful," the apostle has vividly portrayed in the seventh chapter of the Romans. This last point, however, is probably not even glanced at here; and it is only by straining the sense of carin, that some commentators, notably Meyer, find the apostle to be here stating that the Law was added for the behoof of transgressions, as it were in their interest, to increase and intensify them, as sewn Rom_5:20, that the trespass might abound. This, however, is not naturally found in the present passage. All that the apostle here states is that the Law merely dealt with sins, having no function in relation to life and righteousness. The article before paraba) indicates the whole class of objects referred to, as e.g. in toiv ajnqrwpoiv. (Heb_9:27) This" superadded" (prosetiqh) is not inconsistent with the oujd ejpidiatassetai, "nor addeth thereto," of ver. 15; inasmuch as it points to a Divine ordinance, which steed, so to speak, in a different plane from the covenant of grace, and in no way interfered with it. Till the seed should come (acriv ou elqh torma). The form of expression indicates the purpose of him who arranged it all, that the Law should last only so long, and was to come to an end when the seed came. To whom the promise was made (w ejphggeltai); to whom the promise hath been made. The perfect tense of the verb, as in the case of kecaristai, in ver. 18, points to the still continuing validity of the promise. The "seed" is "Christ;" the historical Christ, indeed, but still viewed collectively as summing up in himself all who should be united to him. And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (diatageilwn ejn ceiritou); being ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. The verb "ordain" (diatassein), being most commonly used for "command," "order," as Luk_8:55 1Co_7:17 is introduced in preference to doqei, (comp. ver. 20 and, Joh_1:17 Joh_7:19) as making more prominent the notion of imperative action on the part of the Divine Lawgiver. The whole passage is tinctured with the feeling that the giving of the Law, as contrasted with the dispensation of the Messiah, was marked by distance, sternness, alienation. This is the meaning of the mention of "angels" as the medium of communication on the side of Heaven, and of "a mediator" as the selected medium of reception on the side of Israel. (compare the contrast between the two dispensations in Heb_12:18-24) This representation of the Law as given through angels is unmistakably made again in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the words, "The word spoken through angels", (Heb_2:2) where also it is placed in the same contrast with the gospel as spoken by the Lord Jesus, which here is plainly implied, if indeed it is not expressly alluded to, in the enigmatic words, "but God is one," in the next verse. This view of the Law as communicated through the medium of angels is distinctly reerred to by St. Stephen as the accepted belief of the Jewish theologians before whom he spoke: "Ye who received the Law as the ordinances of angels", (Act_7:53) where the phrase, diatagalwn, forms a remarkable parallel to the words, diatageilwn, now before us. The same view is put forth by Josephus ("Ant.," 15:5, 3), "We having learned the most excellent of our doctrines and the most holy part of our Law through angels from God." Such, then, was incontestably the current belief of the Jewish people, both Christian and non-Christian. The Hebrew theologians directed a great deal of attention upon the doctrine of angels, of which the "boundless genealogies" spoken of by St. Paul. (1Ti_1:4; comp. Col_2:18) was certainly one diseased branch. We may without improbability suppose that their exegetical sagacity, not unaided by the Spirit of God promised by him to his people upon their restoration from Captivity, detected the particular fact here indicated in Deu_33:2; Psa_68:17; Exo_19:16, Exo_19:19. The countless hosts of his "saints" who attended upon the Lord on that occasion were not surely mere spectators; and to their intervention acting out the volitions of God might be most reasonably ascribed all the physical sights and sounds which gave to the giving of the Law its sensible awfulness. (comp. 1Th_4:16) "They raised the fire and smoke; they shook and rent the rock; they framed the sound of the trumpet; they effected the articulate voices which conveyed the words of the Law to the ears of the people, and therein proclaimed and published the Law; whereby it became "the word spoken by angels (Owen, "Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews," 2:2). In the hand of a mediator (ejn ceiritou); by the hand of a mediator. jEn ceiri, in or by the hand, is unquestionably a Hebraism, being in the Septuagint the ordinary literal rendering of the Hebrew beyad; see e.g. Num_4:37, Num_4:45; which passages likewise show us whom the apostle means to designate as the mediator; in reference to which comp. alsomeson) Deu_5:5, "I stood between (ajna) the Lord and you at that time i.e. at the giving of the Law, to show you the word of the Lord." So Philo ("Vit. Mos.," 678) speaks of Hoses as acting like a mesithv kaikthv, "mediator and reconciler." Schottgen ("Hor. Hebr.") gives numerous examples from the rabbinical books of this application of the term "mediator "to Moses. This conception of Moses as a mediator seems implied also in the words, "Mediator of a better covenant" and "Mediator of a new covenant," which we have in Heb_8:6 and 12:24, with reference to Christ. Evidently the mention of a mediator in the present passage is intended to point to the relations between the Lord and Israel as being those of distance and estrangement. If it be objected that the same inference would be deducible from the description of Christ as "Mediator between God and men," in 1Ti_2:5, we have it to say, in answer, that Christ, being in his nature both God and man, not only mediates between God and men, having made atonement or reconciliation by his cross, but in his own being unites God and man, abolishing actually that state of mutual alienation which the mediation of Moses by figure implied but could not in reality do away. We, too, were enemies to God before we were reconciled by the death of his Son; (Rom_5:10) but now, being reconciled, we are at one with God in Christ: Christ"s life in our nature both guaranteeing and effectuating our continued state of reconciliation with the Father as well as our own spiritual and eternal life.

Vers. 19, 20.

The use and nature of the Law.

then is the Law?" The apostle"s reasoning seemed to make the Law a quite superfluous thing. In the eyes of the Judaists it was God"s most glorious institute. It was necessary, therefore, to show its nature, office, and characteristics, and its relation to the covenant of promise. It was really inferior to the dispensation of grace on four grounds, which themselves explain its nature and use.

I THE LAW DISCOVERS SIN. "It was superadded because of transgressions.

1. It was not to check sin.

2. Nor to create sin.

3. But to discover it.

the Law is the knowledge of sin". (Rom_3:20) This discovery would necessarily multiply transgressions, (Rom_5:20) just as the introduction of light into a darkened room makes manifest the things that were before unseen. "I had not known sin but by the Law". (Rom_7:7) Many sins were not seen to be sins at all till the Law threw its intense light upon them. Thus the great service of the Law was to awaken conviction of sin in the heart and to make men feel their need of a Saviour. The ceremonial and the moral Law had equally this effect. The system of sacrifice had no meaning apart from the fact of sin. What a mistake, then, was that of the Judaists who imagined that the Law could give them a title to eternal life in virtue of their obedience to its commands

III THE LAW WAS A TEMPORARY AND INTERMEDIATE DISPENSATION. "It was superadded till the seed shall have come to whom the promise has been made." This refers to the coming of Christ who is "the Seed." The apostle puts himself back to the time of giving the Law, and looks forward from that starting-point to the future incarnation. The Law was thus a mighty parenthesis coming in between Abraham"s promise and the coming of the seed, and was specially preparative and disciplinary in relation to that future event. It was destined then to pass away as a dispensation, but the moral Law, which it held in its bosom, was to abide in its full integrity. That Law still exists in Christianity, with its old power of manifesting sin and carrying conviction to sinners so as to shut them up to Christ.

III THE LAW DID NOT COME DIRECT FROM GOD TO MAN, AS THE PROMISE CAME TO ABRAHAM, BUT THROUGH ANGELS BY A MEDIATOR, "Being ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator?" This is another point of inferiority. God gave the promise to Abraham immediately, not mediately by angels or through any intervention like that of Moses; unlike the Law, which was superadded through this double intervention.

1. The share of angels in the giving of the Law.

(1) Evidence of Scripture on the subject. Stephen says in his speech that the Israelites received the Law "at the ordination of angels," or "according to the arrangements of angels. (Act_7:53) The Law is elsewhere described as "the word spoken by angels". (Heb_2:2) Yet in the history of the giving of the Law there is no reference to angels, not even to their presence. In two passages their presence, but not their ministration, is referred to (Deu_32:2; Psa_68:17)

(2) As the Law is said to have been ordained by means of angels and" the word spoken by angels," it is probable that the angels made it audible to the people or were connected with the terrible phenomena which accompanied the giving of the Law. The angels came between God and the people. (Psa_68:17)

(3) The presence of angels may have led in time to a perverted doctrine of angel-worship, against which the apostle warns the Colossians. (Col_2:18)

2. The share of Moses in the giving of the Law. It was "ordained in the hand of a mediator," who was Moses. He describes his own mediation: "I stood between you and the Lord at that time". (Deu_5:5, Deu_5:27) It was Moses who bore the tables of stone from God to the people. We are not to suppose that the reference is designed to mark the inferiority of the Law to the covenant of promise, which, too, had its Mediator, Jesus Christ the Lord. He is not contrasting the Law and the gospel, but the Law and the promise of Abraham; and he asserts that, while in the one case the angels and Moses had to do with its conveyance, God in the other case gave the promise without the intervention of either man or angel.

IV THE LAW WAS DEPENDENT UPON CONDITIONS, THE PROMISE WAS ABSOLUTE. "Now, a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." The very idea of mediation implies two parties, who are to be brought into some relation with each other through the intervention of a third person. In the case of the Law, there were two parties God and the Jewish people. In the case of the promise, "God is one;" he is mediatorless no one stands between him and Abraham, as Moses stood between God and the Israelites in the giving of the Law. There is a numerical contrast between "one" and "of one.

The object of the Law.

The Law, we are told, was "added because of transgressions." This cannot mean that it was instituted to restrain transgressions the normal object of Law since that assertion would be opposed to the main drift of the apostle"s argument; nor can it signify simply that the Law was added to reveal transgressions, or this would be more directly stated; nor certainly can it mean that the Law was intended to produce transgressions, to serve as an instrument of sin a purpose which would be more diabolical than Divine. Probably St. Paul"s meaning is that the Law was intended to convert sins into transgressions; i.e, to give to amorphous and almost unconscious wickedness a definite form, so that it could be seen, handled, chastised, and cured. (Rom_7:8, Rom_7:9)

I SIN IS NATURALLY OBSCURE. It spreads through the soul as a rank malaria, felt in its evil effects, but not clearly seen and known. We feel ourselves to be ailing, but cannot lay our fingers upon the seat of the disease. Just in proportion to its internal character it is dangerous; yet in the same proportion it is vague and beyond our reach. It is darkness and death things vast, shapeless, without definition, mere blank negations. Nothing is more erratic than an unenlightened conscience. A spiritually ignorant person cannot tell when he sins or how far his guilt extends. He is like a blind man groping among pathless wilds, stumbling and falling he knows not how or where.

II LAW CONVERTS VAGUE SIN INTO DEFINITE TRANSGRESSION. It does not simply reveal the hidden sin, as the acid develops the photograph and as the daylight lays bare the ugly ruin. It gives to sin a new form and character, as the chemical re-agent precipitates a solution. It compels the diffused sinfulness to crystallize into sharply defined offences, The force of the tide is not seen till the wave breaks against the shore. The current of evil is strong, but unrecognized, till it meets a Law and dashes over it in wild assault. Sin lurks in our hearts and creeps through our lives as a formless spirit of evil. Then a Law is declared, "Thou shalt not steal," or, "Thou shalt not kill." Sin meeting this directly breaks the Law. Now, it is a clear offence, a definite, chargeable transgression, capable of being brought home to the criminal.

III THIS CONVERSION OF SIN INTO TRANSGRESSION IS FOR OUR ULTIMATE GOOD. At first it looks cruel, if not immoral. It seems like God tempting us. But God does not send the inducement to sin. He only sends the forbidding Law, which gives form to the sin already present.

1. Thus Law becomes an external conscience. By means of it we know how far we have fallen.

2. It becomes an occasion for the Divine chastisement which we need in order to be brought to repentance.

3. It prepares us to receive the gospel by rousing us from the slumber of indifference, making us see how evil and how helpless we are, and so urging us to seek redemption from the curse of Law in the grace of Christ. 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.

It - The ceremonial law. Was added - To the promise. Because of transgressions - Probably, the yoke of the ceremonial law was inflicted as a punishment for the national sin of idolatry, Exod. xxxii, 1, at least the more grievous parts of it; and the whole of it was a prophetic type of Christ. The moral law was added to the promise to discover and restrain transgressions, to convince men of their guilt, and need of the promise, and give some check to sin. And this law passeth not away; but the ceremonial law was only introduced till Christ, the seed to or through whom the promise was made, should come. And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator - It was not given to Israel, like the promise to Abraham, immediately from God himself; but was conveyed by the ministry of angels to Moses, and delivered into his hand as a mediator between God and them, to remind them of the great Mediator.

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

VERSE 19. Wherefore then serveth the law?

The question naturally arises: If the Law was not given for righteousness or salvation, why was it given? Why did God give the Law in the first place if it cannot justify a person?

The Jews believed if they kept the Law they would be saved. When they heard that the Gospel proclaimed a Christ who had come into the world to save sinners and not the righteous; when they heard that sinners were to enter the kingdom of heaven before the righteous, the Jews were very much put out. They murmured: "These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day." (Mat 20:12.) They complained that the heathen who at one time had been worshipers of idols obtained grace without the drudgery of the Law that was theirs.

Today we hear the same complaints. "What was the use of our having lived in a cloister, twenty, thirty, forty years; what was the sense of having vowed chastity, poverty, obedience; what good are all the masses and canonical hours that we read; what profit is there in fasting, praying, etc., if any man or woman, any beggar or scour woman is to be made equal to us, or even be considered more acceptable unto God than we?"

Reason takes offense at the statement of Paul: "The law was added because of transgressions." People say that Paul abrogated the Law, that he is a radical, that he blasphemed God when he said that. People say: "We might as well live like wild people if the Law does not count. Let us abound in sin that grace may abound. Let us do evil that good may come of it."

What are we to do? Such scoffing distresses us, but we cannot stop it. Christ Himself was accused of being a blasphemer and rebel. Paul and all the other apostles were told the same things. Let the scoffers slander us, let them spare us not. But we must not on their account keep silent. We must speak frankly in order that afflicted consciences may find surcease. Neither are we to pay any attention to the foolish and ungodly people for abusing our doctrine. They are the kind that would scoff, Law or no Law. Our first consideration must be the comfort of troubled consciences, that they may not perish with the multitudes.

When he saw that some were offended at his doctrine, while others found in it encouragement to live after the flesh, Paul comforted himself with the thought that it was his duty to preach the Gospel to the elect of God, and that for their sake he must endure all things. Like Paul we also do all these things for the sake of God’s elect. As for the scoffers and skeptics, I am so disgusted with them that in all my life I would not open my mouth for them once. I wish that they were back there where they belong under the iron heel of the Pope.

People foolish but wise in their conceits jump to the conclusion: If the Law does not justify, it is good for nothing. How about that? Because money does not justify, would you say that money is good for nothing? Because the eyes do not justify, would you have them taken out? Because the Law does not justify it does not follow that the Law is without value. We must find and define the proper purpose of the Law. We do not offhand condemn the Law because we say it does not justify.

We say with Paul that the Law is good if it is used properly. Within its proper sphere the Law is an excellent thing. But if we ascribe to the Law functions for which it was never intended, we pervert not only the Law but also the Gospel.

It is the universal impression that righteousness is obtained through the deeds of the Law. This impression is instinctive and therefore doubly dangerous. Gross sins and vices may be recognized or else repressed by the threat of punishment. But this sin, this opinion of man’s own righteousness refuses to be classified as sin. It wants to be esteemed as high-class religion. Hence, it constitutes the mighty influence of the devil over the entire world. In order to point out the true office of the Law, and thus to stamp out that false impression of the righteousness of the Law, Paul answers the question: "Wherefore then serveth the Law?" with the words:

VERSE 19. It was added because of transgressions.

All things differ. Let everything serve its unique purpose. Let the sun shine by day, the moon and the stars by night. Let the sea furnish fish, the earth grain, the woods trees, etc. Let the Law also serve its unique purpose. It must not step out of character and take the place of anything else. What is the function of the Law? "Transgression," answers the Apostle.

The Twofold Purpose of the Law

The Law has a twofold purpose. One purpose is civil. God has ordained civil laws to punish crime. Every law is given to restrain sin. Does it not then make men righteous? No. In refraining from murder, adultery, theft, or other sins, I do so under compulsion because I fear the jail, the noose, the electric chair. These restrain me as iron bars restrain a lion and a bear. Otherwise they would tear everything to pieces. Such forceful restraint cannot be regarded as righteousness, rather as an indication of unrighteousness. As a wild beast is tied to keep it from running amuck, so the Law bridles mad and furious man to keep him from running wild. The need for restraint shows plainly enough that those who need the Law are not righteous, but wicked men who are fit to be tied. No, the Law does not justify.

The first purpose of the Law, accordingly, is to restrain the wicked. The devil gets people into all kinds of scrapes. Therefore God instituted governments, parents, laws, restrictions, and civil ordinances. At least they help to tie the devil’s hands so that he does not rage up and down the earth. This civil restraint by the Law is intended by God for the preservation of all things, particularly for the good of the Gospel that it should not be hindered too much by the tumult of the wicked. But Paul is not now treating of this civil use and function of the Law.

The second purpose of the Law is spiritual and divine. Paul describes this spiritual purpose of the Law in the words, "Because of transgressions," i.e., to reveal to a person his sin, blindness, misery, his ignorance, hatred, and contempt of God, his death, hell, and condemnation.

This is the principal purpose of the Law and its most valuable contribution. As long as a person is not a murderer, adulterer, thief, he would swear that he is righteous. How is God going to humble such a person except by the Law? The Law is the hammer of death, the thunder of hell, and the lightning of God’s wrath to bring down the proud and shameless hypocrites. When the Law was instituted on Mount Sinai it was accompanied by lightning, by storms, by the sound of trumpets, to tear to pieces that monster called self-righteousness. As long as a person thinks he is right he is going to be incomprehensibly proud and presumptuous. He is going to hate God, despise His grace and mercy, and ignore the promises in Christ. The Gospel of the free forgiveness of sins through Christ will never appeal to the self-righteous.

This monster of self-righteousness, this stiff-necked beast, needs a big axe. And that is what the Law is, a big axe. Accordingly, the proper use and function of the Law is to threaten until the conscience is scared stiff.

The awful spectacle at Mount Sinai portrayed the proper use of the Law. When the children of Israel came out of Egypt a feeling of singular holiness possessed them. They boasted: "We are the people of God. All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." (Exo 19:8) This feeling of holiness was heightened when Moses ordered them to wash their clothes, to refrain from their wives, and to prepare themselves all around. The third day came and Moses led the people out of their tents to the foot of the mountain into the presence of the Lord. What happened? When the children of Israel saw the whole mountain burning and smoking, the black clouds rent by fierce lightning flashing up and down in the inky darkness, when they heard the sound of the trumpet blowing louder and longer, shattered by the roll of thunder, they were so frightened that they begged Moses: "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." (Exo 20:19.) I ask you, what good did their scrubbing, their snow-white clothes, and their continence do them? No good at all. Not a single one could stand in the presence of the glorious Lord. Stricken by the terror of God, they fled back into their tents, as if the devil were after them.

The Law is meant to produce the same effect today which it produced at Mount Sinai long ago. I want to encourage all who fear God, especially those who intend to become ministers of the Gospel, to learn from the Apostle the proper use of the Law. I fear that after our time the right handling of the Law will become a lost art. Even now, although we continually explain the separate functions of the Law and the Gospel, we have those among us who do not understand how the Law should be used. What will it be like when we are dead and gone?

We want it understood that we do not reject the Law as our opponents claim. On the contrary, we uphold the Law. We say the Law is good if it is used for the purposes for which it was designed, to check civil transgression, and to magnify spiritual transgressions. The Law is also a light like the Gospel. But instead of revealing the grace of God, righteousness, and life, the Law brings sin, death, and the wrath of God to light. This is the business of the Law, and here the business of the Law ends, and should go no further.

The business of the Gospel, on the other hand, is to quicken, to comfort, to raise the fallen. The Gospel carries the news that God for Christ’s sake is merciful to the most unworthy sinners, if they will only believe that Christ by His death has delivered them from sin and everlasting death unto grace, forgiveness, and everlasting life. By keeping in mind the difference between the Law and the Gospel we let each perform its special task. Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error.

VERSE 19. It was added because of transgressions.

In other words, that transgressions might be recognized as such and thus increased. When sin, death, and the wrath of God are revealed to a person by the Law, he grows impatient, complains against God, and rebels. Before that he was a very holy man; he worshipped and praised God; he bowed his knees before God and gave thanks, like the Pharisee. But now that sin and death are revealed to him by the Law he wishes there were no God. The Law inspires hatred of God. Thus sin is not only revealed by the Law; sin is actually increased and magnified by the Law.

The Law is a mirror to show a person what he is like, a sinner who is guilty of death, and worthy of everlasting punishment. What is this bruising and beating by the hand of the Law to accomplish? This, that we may find the way to grace. The Law is an usher to lead the way to grace. God is the God of the humble, the miserable, the afflicted. It is His nature to exalt the humble, to comfort the sorrowing, to heal the broken-hearted, to justify the sinners, and to save the condemned. The fatuous idea that a person can be holy by himself denies God the pleasure of saving sinners. God must therefore first take the sledge-hammer of the Law in His fists and smash the beast of self-righteousness and its brood of self-confidence, self-wisdom, self-righteousness, and self-help. When the conscience has been thoroughly frightened by the Law it welcomes the Gospel of grace with its message of a Savior who came into the world, not to break the bruised reed, nor to quench the smoking flax, but to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, and to grant forgiveness of sins to all the captives.

Man’s folly, however, is so prodigious that instead of embracing the message of grace with its guarantee of the forgiveness of sin for Christ’s sake, man finds himself more laws to satisfy his conscience. "If I live," says he, "I will mend my life. I will do this, I will do that." Man, if you don’t do the very opposite, if you don’t send Moses with the Law back to Mount Sinai and take the hand of Christ, pierced for your sins, you will never be saved.

When the Law drives you to the point of despair, let it drive you a little farther, let it drive you straight into the arms of Jesus who says: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

VERSE 19. Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.

The Law is not to have its say indefinitely. We must know how long the Law is to put in its licks. If it hammers away too long, no person would and could be saved. The Law has a boundary beyond which it must not go. How long ought the Law to hold sway? "Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made."

That may be taken literally to mean until the time of the Gospel. "From the days of John the Baptist," says Jesus, "until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Mat 11:12-13.) When Christ came the Law and the ceremonies of Moses ceased.

Spiritually, it means that the Law is not to operate on a person after he has been humbled and frightened by the exposure of his sins and the wrath of God. We must then say to the Law: "Mister Law, lay off him. He has had enough. You scared him good and proper." Now it is the Gospel’s turn. Now let Christ with His gracious lips talk to him of better things, grace, peace, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life.

VERSE 19. And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Apostle digresses a little from his immediate theme. Something occurred to him and he throws it in by the way. It occurred to him that the Law differs from the Gospel in another respect, in respect to authorship. The Law was delivered by the angels, but the Gospel by the Lord Himself. Hence, the Gospel is superior to the Law, as the word of a lord is superior to the word of his servant.

The Law was handed down by a being even inferior to the angels, by a middleman named Moses. Paul wants us to understand that Christ is the mediator of a better testament than mediator Moses of the Law. Moses led the people out of their tents to meet God. But they ran away. That is how good a mediator Moses was.

Paul says: "How can the Law justify when that whole sanctified people of Israel and even mediator Moses trembled at the voice of God? What kind of righteousness do you call that when people run away from it and hate it the worst way? If the Law could justify, people would love the Law. But look at the children of Israel running away from it."

The flight of the children of Israel from Mount Sinai indicates how people feel about the Law. They don’t like it. If this were the only argument to prove that salvation is not by the Law, this one Bible history would do the work. What kind of righteousness is this law-righteousness when at the commencement exercises of the Law Moses and the scrubbed people run away from it so fast that an iron mountain, the Red Sea even, could not have stopped them until they were back in Egypt once again? If they could not hear the Law, how could they ever hope to perform the Law?

If all the world had stood at the mountain, all the world would have hated the Law and fled from it as the children of Israel did. The whole world is an enemy of the Law. How, then, can anyone be justified by the Law when everybody hates the Law and its divine author?

All this goes to show how little the scholastics know about the Law. They do not consider its spiritual effect and purpose, which is not to justify or to pacify afflicted consciences, but to increase sin, to terrify the conscience, and to produce wrath. In their ignorance the papists spout about man’s good will and right judgment, and man’s capacity to perform the Law of God. Ask the people of Israel who were present at the presentation of the Law on Mount Sinai whether what the scholastics say is true. Ask David, who often complains in the Psalms that he was cast away from God and in hell, that he was frantic about his sin, and sick at the thought of the wrath and judgment of God. No, the Law does not justify.

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.

Proofs for the Liberty of a Christian from the Nature and Meaning of the Law.

The secondary office of the Law:

v. 19. Wherefore, then, serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

v. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

v. 21. Is the Law, the n, against the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.

v. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The apostle here meets an objection which the opponents might make. If the Law can be of no assistance in the matter of justification, what is its purpose? He shows that the fact of the Law’s being without value so far as salvation is concerned by no means renders it useless. it was added on account of the transgressions until the Seed should come to whom the promise had been made, being ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. The Law was added to the communications of God to men, as a companion or servant of the evangelical promises, Rom 5:20. On account of the transgressions it was set forth in addition to the Gospel-promise, by the side of the message of salvation. As the children of Israel grew in numbers, they gradually lost sight of the great prophecy of their spiritual inheritance; they became guilty of various transgressions of the will of God; they were in danger of losing the treasure which had been entrusted to them. And so God gave them the Law to show them their transgressions, to keep alive in them the consciousness of sin, to make them feel the need of a Savior at all times. Such is the supplementary, the ancillary character of the Law; it is to serve for the purpose of working knowledge of sin and of the wrath of God on account of sin This object incidentally gives to the Law a temporary character; it was to serve only until Christ, the promised Seed, came. The ministry of condemnation was to be done away with, 2Co 3:11, for Christ is the end of the Law to them that believe. As soon as Christ occupies the heart of a person by faith, the Law as such has lost its power; it can no longer hurl maledictions and condemnations upon us, and its demands become mere sign-posts to show the way to the service of sanctification. The subsidiary character of the Law is finally shown by the manner of its origin, since it was set forth through angels by the hand of a mediator. The angels of the Lord were His servants on Sinai, in proclaiming the Law; their voice sounded forth in the sound of the trumpet, their power was seen in the quaking of the mountain and in the flames of fire. By means of their service the Lord placed the words of the Law into the hands of Moses to deliver them to the people.

In connection with this plain statement Paul now remarks: But the mediator is not of one: the very term excludes his being the mediator of a single party; but God is one. These two statements may be regarded as the first two members of a logical conclusion, the third member then being: A mediator does not mediate between God. The meaning of the apostle then would be: By giving the Law through the mediator, Moses, the Lord wanted to indicate plainly that the Law should and could have nothing to do with the subject under discussion, the justification of poor sinners. But an even simpler explanation is the following: At the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai God made use of a mediator, Noses. But a mediator, by virtue of his position, is the representative of both parties of a covenant. These parties at Mount Sinai were God and the children of Israel. By using Moses as mediator, God indicated that He was entering upon a covenant with the Israelites under certain conditions. God promised them eternal life, but only on condition of their fulfilling His Law in all its particulars. But it is different with the promise which the Lord gave to Abraham, vv. 16 and 19. God there did not make use of a mediator, but spoke to Abraham in person, face to face. He alone was active in giving His free promise of grace, with His testament of mercy, given absolutely without condition; He acted as one, in the freedom of His divine favor.

A second objection: Is the Law, then, against the promises of God? By no means. People might object that, since there is such a great difference between the character of the two communications of the Lord to men, the one nullifies the other. But that does not follow. God does not contradict Himself. For if a law were given which could have given life, then truly were righteousness out of the Law. If that were the character, the nature, of the Law, not only to demand righteousness, but also to transmit righteousness, if it were able to give spiritual life to such as are in spiritual death, then the order of salvation would indeed have been changed, then both doctrines, the Law and the Gospel, would be advancing the claim of bringing salvation, then we could be justified before God by means of the Law. But there are no powers of regeneration in the Law, it cannot work the new, spiritual life.

The Law thus being excluded as a means of grace, only one thing remains: Rather has the Scripture shut up all under sin, in order that the promise might be given by faith in Jesus Christ to them that believe. What Paul writes, Rom 3:22-23, that there is no difference, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, is amply substantiated in many passages of God’s Word, Psa 14:3; Psa 143:2. All men without exception are prisoners under sentence, condemned to pay the penalty of sin; not one there is that can deny his guilt. And since they are all thus in the same condemnation by the sentence and the power of the Law, therefore the purpose of the Law to pave the way for the action of the Gospel may now be realized. Works and merits have been discarded, the Law as a means of grace can no longer be considered: the Gospel-promise is given by faith in Christ to them that believe. Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling! The promise is given, faith is given; and faith accepts the promise and thus has forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

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

Here an objection is moved: Some might be ready to say, "If the law, that is, works done in obedience to the law, do not justify, then the law given by Moses upon Mount Sinai, is in vain, and to no purpose; for why was the law given, enjoining so many duties, promising life to the obedient, and threatening wrath and a curse to the disobedient, if the inheritance come not by the law?" The apostle answers, that one great end for which the law was given, was to discover sin, and a sinner’s undone condition by reason of sin, and to lead him to seek out for a remedy. The law was added because of transgressions: that is, to make transgression appear, to discover the pollutions of men’s hearts and natures, and make them sensible of the condemnation they are under. The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come: that is, Christ and his church.

Where note, that the legal dispensations were not to continue always in the church, but only till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: at whose death the partition wall was broken down, and the Gentiles called into the fellowship of the church, as well as the Jews.

Observe, farther, the glorious and amazing manner, in which the law was given upon Mount Sinai, in thunder and lightning, by the ministry of angels, in such a terrible manner, that there was no access for sinful man to God, but by Moses, a mediator, standing betwixt God and them; who in that action was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and us. As Moses was a typical, national, and representative Mediator, standing between the Lord and that people of the Jews, so Christ was a substantial and universal Mediator between God and mankind.

Where note, that the law was published in mercy and pacification, not in fury and revenge; for had the Lord intended death in the publishing of the law, he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator, but of an executioner. He adds, That a Mediator is not a Mediator of one, that is, of one party, but of disagreeing parties. God and man were once friends. They were one, and needed no Mediator: But God and man, by sin, fell at variance, and now need a Mediator. The very notion of a Mediator doth suppose, that men by sin, are at odds with God, and that God, by grace, is willing to be one with man. However, though a Mediator is not a mediator of one, yet God is one: that is, together be two covenants: he carries on one and the same purpose and intention, both in the law, and in the gospel; namely, a benevolence and good-will towards, and a hearty desire and reconciliation with mankind.

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

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

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.

19–23. Wherefore then serveth the law? What was its object then? It was added in order to restrain transgressions among men, and especially among the fleshly race of Abraham, until the promised seed, to whom the promise was made, even Christ, should come. It was therefore only to last until that seed came. Ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Communicated through the means of angels to the mediator between Israel and God; that is, to Moses. See Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2; Deut. 33:2, and Deut. 5:5.

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.

Connecting Statement:

Paul tells the believers in Galatia why God gave the law.

What, then, was the purpose of the law?

Paul uses a rhetorical question to introduce the next topic he wants to discuss. It can also be translated as a statement. AT: "I will tell you what the purpose of the law is." or "Let me tell you why God gave the law." (See: Rhetorical Question)

It was added

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God added it" or "God added the law" (See: Active or Passive)

The law was put into force through angels by a mediator

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God issued the law with the help of angels, and a mediator put it into force" (See: Active or Passive)

a mediator

"a representative"

Now a mediator implies more than one person, but God is one

God gave his promise to Abraham without a mediator, but he gave the law to Moses with a mediator. As a result, Paul's readers may have thought that the law somehow made the promise to no effect. Paul is stating what his readers might have thought here, and he will respond to them in the verses that follow.

translationWords

law

transgress

descend

Abraham

angel

mediator

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

19-24.] The use and nature of the Law. What (ref.) then (is) the Law (‘ubi audimus Legem nihil valere ad conferendam justitiam, statim obrepunt variæ cogitationes: aut igitur esse inutilem, aut contrariam fœderi Dei, aut tale quippiam.’ Calv.)? For the sake of the transgressions [of it] (the words τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν have been variously understood. (1) Aug., Calv., Beza, Luth., al., explain it of the detection of transgressions, as in Rom_7. (2) Chrys., Œc., Thl., Jer., Erasm., Grot., Rück., Olsh., B.-Crus., De Wette, al., of their repression: μὴ ἐξῇ Ἰουδαίοις ἀδεῶς ζῆν … ἀλλʼ ἀντὶ χαλινοῦ ὁ νόμος αὐτοῖς ἐπικείμενος ᾖ, παιδεύων, ῥυθμίζων, κωλύων παραβαίνειν. Chrys. (3) Luth., Est., Bengel, al., combine (1) and (2). But it is hardly possible that either of these should be the true explanation. For the Apostle is not now treating of the detection of sin, or of the repression of sin (which latter was besides not the office of the Law, see Rom 5:20), but of the Law as a preparation for Christ, vv. 23, 24: and therefore it must be regarded in its propædeutic office, not in its detective or (?) repressive. Now this propædeutic office was, to make sin into transgression,—so that what was before not a transgression might now become one. The law then was added (to the promise, which had no such power), for the sake of (in order to bring about as transgressions) the transgressions (of it) which should be, and thus (ver. 23) to shut us up under sin, viz. the transgression of the law. This is nearly Meyer’s view, except that he makes this the exclusive meaning of χάριν, which usage will not sustain, cf. 1Jn 3:12. Ellic.’s view is very close to mine, which he has mistaken) it was superadded (“προσετέθη does not contradict the assertion of ver. 15, οὐδεὶς … ἐπιδιατάσσεται. For the Law was not given as an ἐπιδιαθήκη, but came in as another institution, additional to that already existing.” Meyer) until the seed shall have come (he places himself at the giving of the law and looks on into the future: hence the subjunctive, not the optative: and without ἄν, because the time is a certain and definite one), to whom (ver. 16) the promise has been (see above) made (the vulgate renders ἐπήγγελται promiserat, sc. Deus: and so Bengel prefers, from reff. active. But the passive suits ver. 16 (ἐῤῥέθησαν) better, and is justified by reff. Macc. Bretschneider understands it cui demandatum est, viz. to put an end to the law: but this is against N. T. usage of ἐπαγγέλλω, and absurd, where ἐπαγγελίαι is so often used in the context. This Seed is of course Christ), being enjoined (the aorist participle does not here denote previous occurrence, but is merely part of an aorist sentence: so Herod. i. 14, Γύγης δὲ τυραννεύσας ἀνέπεμψεν ἀναθήματα …: Diod. Sic. xi. 31, γενναίως ἀγωνισάμενος πολλοὺς ἀνεῖλε τῶν Ἑλλήνων. See Hermann on Viger, pp. 772-3. For διατάσσω, cf. note on Act 7:53, and Hesiod, Op. 274, τόνδε γὰρ ἀνθρώποισι νόμον διέταξε Κρονίων: it is not promulgate, as Winer) by means of (not, under the attestation of, as Peile, nor in the presence of, as Calov., al.) angels (angels were, according to the Rabbinical view, the enactors and enjoiners of the Law: so Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ἡμῶν τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων κ. τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις διʼ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθόντων: see also the citations in Wetst.: Heb 2:2; and note on Col 2:15. Of course no explaining away of ἄγγελοι into men (Moses, Aaron, &c.) as Chrys. (altern.: ἢ τοὺς ἱερέας ἀγγέλους λέγει, ἢ καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὑπηρετήσασθαί φησι τῇ νομοθεσίᾳ), al., can be allowed. Observe, the angels are not the givers of the Law, but its ministers, and instrumental enactors: the Law, with St. Paul, is always God’s Law; see especially Rom 7:22) in the hand of a mediator (viz. Moses, who came from God to the people with the tables of the law in his hands. Cf. his own words, Deu 5:5, κἀγὼ εἱστήκειν ἀναμέσον κυρίου κ. ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν τὰ ῥήματα κυρίου, ὅτι ἐφοβήθητε ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ πυρὸς κ. οὐκ ὰνέβητε εἰς τὸ ὄρος, λέγων …: Philo, vita Mos. iii. 19, vol. ii. p. 160, οἷα μεσίτης κ. διαλλακτὴς οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀνεπήδησεν, ἀλλὰ πρότερον τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους ἱκεσίας κ. λιτὰς ἐποιεῖτο. Schöttgen gives numerous examples from the Rabbinical books, in which the name Mediator is given to Moses.—But most of the Fathers (not Thdrt.), Bede, Lyra, Calvin, Calov., al., understand Christ to be meant: Schmieder and Schneckenburger, the Angel of the Covenant,—the Metatron. Neither of these interpretations however will hold against the above evidence).

Why does the Apostle add this last clause? I am inclined to think with Meyer that it is,—not to disparage the law in comparison with the Gospel (as Luth., Elsn., Flatt, Rück., Jowett, &c. &c.) or with the promise (Estius, Schneckenb., De Wette), but to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the law as a preparation for Christ, in answer to the somewhat disparaging question τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; If the διʼ ἀγγέλων had been here disparaging, as in Heb 2:2, διὰ τοῦ κυρίου or the like must have been expressed, as there, on the other side. And ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου is certainly no disparagement of the old covenant in comparison with the new, for this it has in common with the other. The fact is (see below on ver. 20), that no such comparison is in question here.

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

19. τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; “What then is the significance of the law?” A question obviously raised by the argument advanced in vv. 15-18, which seemed to leave the law without function. ὁ νόμος is, of course, the same law there spoken of; see on v. 17 and on v. 13.

There is no perfectly decisive consideration to enable us to choose between the translations “why is” and “what is,” “what signifies.” Paul frequently uses τί adverbially (Rom 3:7, Rom 3:14:10, 1Co 4:7, Gal 5:11, etc.), yet never elsewhere in the phrase τί οὖν. On the other hand, while τί οὖν elsewhere signifies “what then,” not “why then” (Rom 3:1, Rom 3:9, Rom 3:4:1, Rom 3:6:1, Rom 3:15, etc.), yet when the thought “what signifies” is to be expressed, the copula is usually inserted, not left to be supplied. See 1Co 3:5 τί οὖν ἐστιν Ἀπολλώσ; τί δέ ἐστιν Παῦλος; Joh 6:9: ταῦτα δὲ τί ἐστιν; but cf. other examples of a similar sense, without copula in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 336. The difference of meaning is not great; the question, “Why the law?” is included in the more general question “What signifies the law, how is it with the law?” and this, as the context shows, is in any case the most prominent element of the thought in the apostle’s mind. οὖν connects this question with what precedes, signifying “in view, then, of these statements.”

τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, “For the sake of the transgressions it was added.” προσετέθη marks the law as supplementary, and hence subordinate to the covenant. The statement is not in contradiction with vv. 15ff., because the law in the apostle’s thought forms no part of the covenant, is a thing distinct from it, in no way modifying its provisions. It is the apparent contradiction that probably gave rise to the reading ἐτέθη, which occurs in this v. in D*FG and other Western authorities.

In itself χάριν may be either telic as in Tit 1:5, Tit 1:11, Jud 1:16, Pro 17:17, perhaps also Eph 3:1, Eph 3:14, or causal as in Luk 7:47, 1Jn 3:12; Clem. Hom. 11:16: τῶν παραπτωμάτων χάριν ἡ τιμωρία ἕπεται (cited by Ell. and Ltft.). The context and Paul’s usual conception of the functions of the law are both in favour of the telic force. For, since it is clearly the apostle’s usual thought that where there is no law, though there may be sin, there is no transgression (παράβασις, see Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13), his choice of the word παραβάσεων here must be taken to indicate that he is speaking not of that which is antecedent but of that which is subsequent to the coming of law. The phrase is, therefore, by no means the equivalent of αμαρτιῶν χάριν, and since the distinguishing feature of παράβασις is that it is not simply the following of evil impulse, but violation of explicit law, it naturally suggests, as involved in the παραβάσεων, the recognition of the sinfulness of the deeds, which otherwise might have passed without recognition. Nor can it be justly said that this interpretation involves the supplying of the phrase, “knowledge of” (cf. Sief. “so hätte doch Paulus, um verstanden zu werden, schreiben müssen τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν”), but only the discovery in the expression τῶν παραβάσεων of its implicate, τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τῆς ἁμαρτίας. For the evidence that the latter was in Paul’s thought a function of the law and that he probably conceived of it as brought about through the conversion of sin into transgression, see Rom 3:20, Rom 3:4:15, Rom 3:5:13, Rom 3:14, Rom 3:20, 7:Rom 3:7-12. The article before παραβάσεων is restrictive, but not retrospective. The thought probably is, “the transgressions which will thereby be produced.”

ἄχρις ἅν ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, “to continue until the seed should come to whom the promise still in force was made.” τὸ σπέρμα is, doubtless, to be taken in the same sense as in v. 16b, viz., Christ, if v. 16b is from Paul (cf. p. 182); otherwise as in v. 29, those who are Christ’s. ἐπήγγελται, perfect tense, referring to a past fact and its existing result, marks the promise as being still in force. The whole clause, ἄχρις, etc., sets the limit to the period during which the law continues. Thus the covenant of promise is presented to the mind as of permanent validity, both beginning before and continuing through the period of the law and afterwards, the law on the other hand as temporary, added to the permanent covenant for a period limited in both directions. That the relation of men to God was different after the period of law was ended from what it had been under the law is implied in v. 23. But that the promise with its principle of faith was in no way abrogated or suspended in or after the period of the law is the unequivocal affirmation of vv. 15-18, and clearly implied in the quotation in v. 11 of Hab 2:4, which the apostle doubtless ascribed to this period.

Ἄχρις ἄν is the reading of B33, 1912 Clem. Eus. All others apparently read ἄχρις οὗ. Both ἄχρις ἄν and ἄχρι οὗ are current forms in the first century (M. and M. Voc. s. v.), but Paul elsewhere reads ἄχρι[ς] οὗ (Rom 11:25, 1Co 11:26, 1Co 15:25). In Rom 11:25 and 1Co 15:25 mss. vary between ἄχρι and ἄχρις before οὗ and in 1Co 11:26, 1Co 15:25 a considerable group add ἄν after οὗ, yet none apparently read ἄχρις ἄν. It is improbable, therefore, that this reading is the work of the scribes.

διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου· “being enacted through the agency of angels in the hand of a mediator.” The mediator is self-evidently Moses; the expression ἐν χειρί is probably, as Sief. suggests, intended literally; see Exo 31:18, Exo 32:19. Concerning the tradition that angels were concerned in the giving of the law, see Deu 33:2 (Lxx not Heb.), ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετʼ αὐτοῦ. Jos. Ant. 15. 136 (5:3); Test. XII Pat. Dan_6; Jub. 1:29; Heb 2:2, Act 7:38, Act 7:52 and Talmudic passages cited by Dib. Gwt. p. 27. The intent of the whole phrase is to depreciate the law as not given directly by God.

On διατάσσω, with reference to the enactment of a law, cf. Hes. Op. 276; Plato, Legg. XI 931 E. The participle is an aor. of identical action, describing one phase of the fact denoted by προσετέθη (BMT 139f.).

Μεσίτης, “mediator,” belongs to late Greek. Job 9:33: εἴθε ἧν ὁ μεσίτης ἡμῶν καὶ ἐλέγχων καὶ διακούων ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων. Polyb. 28. 15 (17)8: ἐβούλετο τοὺς Ῥοδίους προνύξας μεσίτας ἀποδεῖξαι. Diod. Sic. 4. 54, τοῦτον γὰρ μεσίτην γεγονότα τῶν ὁμολογιῶν. Cremer, s. v., and Riggenbach, “Der Begriff der Διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief,” in Theologische Studien Th. Zahn … dargebracht, p. 307, interpret the word in this passage and in Jos. Ant. 4. 133 (6:7)—see below—as meaning “surety,” “guarantor.” But while this meaning would give reasonable sense to the passages, there is nothing in the context to require it, and these passages can not, therefore, be regarded as vouchers for it. Philo De Somn. I 142 (22); Vita Mosis, III 163 (19): Μωυσὴς … μεσίτης καὶ διαλλάκτης … Assumpt. Mos. 1:14 (quoted by Gelasius): καὶ προεθεάσατό με (Μωυσὴν) ὁ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἷναί με τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην. See Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., ad loc. (cf. 3:12): itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum prœparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius; Test. XII Pat. Dan_6, μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου (cf. Charles on Jub. 1:29); Jos. Ant 4. 133 (6:7), ταῦτα δὲ ὀμνύντες ἔλεγον καὶ θεὸν μεσίτην ὧν ὑπισχνοῦντο. Ant. 16. 24 (2:2). Pap. Gd. Cairo, p. 30: ἐάν σοι δόξη μεσείτην ἡμεῖν δός (the passage is from the second century a. d. ἡμεῖν refers to two rival claimants for an estate between whom the μεσίτης was to be arbiter). Plut. De Is. et Osir. 46: διὸ καὶ Μίθρην Πέρσαι τὸν μεσίτην ὀνομάζουσιν. See other reff. in Th. s. v. In N. T., besides the present passage, the word occurs in Heb 8:6, Heb 8:9:15, Heb 8:12:24, 1Ti 2:5, in all of which it is a title of Jesus, though in Heb 8:6 there is also a suggestion of Moses as the mediator of the old covenant, meaning the law.

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

Wherefore then serveth the law ? [τι ουν ο νομος] . Lit. what then is the law, or, why then the law ? What is its meaning and object? A natural question of an objector, since, according to Paul 's reasoning, salvation is of promise and not of law.

It was added [προσετεθη] . Comp. pareishlqen came in beside, Rom 5:20. Not as an addition to the promise, which is contrary to verse 18, but as a temporary, intermediate institution, in which only a subordinate purpose of God was expressed.

Because of transgressions [των παραβασεων χαριν] . In order to set upon already existing sins the stamp of positive transgression of law. Comp. Rom 4:5; Rom 5:13. Note the article, the transgressions, summing them up in one mass. Not, in order to give the knowledge of sins. This, it is true, would follow the revelation of sins as transgressions of law (Rom 3:20; Rom 7:13); but,

1. the phrase because of transgressions does not express that thought with sufficient definiteness. If that had been his meaning, Paul would probably have written thv ajpignwsewv twn parabasewn carin on account of the knowledge of transgressions.

2. He meant to describe the office of the law as more than giving the knowledge of sins. Its office was, in revealing sin as positive transgression, to emphasize the objective, actual, contrary fact of righteousness according to the divine ideal, and to throw sin into contrast with that grand ideal. The seed. Christ, whose advent was to introduce the fulfillment of the promise (verse 16).

Ordained [διαταγεις] . The verb means to arrange, appoint, prescribe. Of appointing the twelve, Mt 11:1; of enjoining certain acts, Luk 8:55; Luk 17:10; 1Co 7:17; of the decree of Claudius, Act 18:2. Here, describing the form or mode in which the law was added; the arrangement made for giving it.

By angels [δι αγγελων] . Better, through angels as agents and intermediaries. Comp. eijv diatagav ajggelwn with reference to arrangements of angels; or as it was ordained by angels, Act 7:53. The tradition of the giving of the law through angels appears first in Deu 33:2 (but comp. LXX and the Hebrew). See Heb 2:2; Act 7:53. In the later rabbinical schools great importance was attached to this tradition, and it was not without influence in shaping the doctrine of angelic mediation which formed one of the elements of the Colossian heresy. Josephus (Ant. 14 5, 3) relates that Herod excited the Jews to battle by a speech, in which he said that they had learned the holiest of laws from God through angels. It is a general O. T. idea that in great theophanies God appears surrounded with a heavenly host. See Hab 3:8; Isa 66:15; Zec 14:5; Joe 3:11. The idea of an angelic administration is also familiar. See Exo 23:20; Exo 32:34; Exo 33:14; Isa 63:9; Jos 5:14. The agency of angels indicates the limitations of the older dispensation; its character as a dispensation of the flesh.

In the hand of a mediator [εν χειρι μεσιτου] . En ceiri by the agency of. A Hebraism. In this sense, not elsewhere in N. T. See LXX, Gen 38:20 Lev 16:21. In the hand of Moses, Lev 26:46; Num 4:37, 41, 45, 49. Comp. sun ceiri ajggelou with the hand of the angel, Act 7:35. For mesithv mediator, see on 1Ti 2:5, and comp. Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. It is a later Greek word signifying also umpire, arbitrator, and appears in LXX only in Job 9:33. The mediator here is Moses, who is often so designated by rabbinical writers. The object is not (as Meyer) to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination, but to indicate the inferior, subordinate position held by the law in comparison with the promise, not the gospel. A glorification of the law cannot be intended, since if that were contemplated in the mention of angels and the mediator, the statement would tend to the disparagement of the promise which was given without a mediator. Paul, in the section 3 6 - 9, 7, aims to show that the law does not, as the Judaisers assume, stand in a relation to the divine plan of salvation as direct and positive as does the promise, and that it has not, like the promise and its fulfillment, an eternal significance. On the contrary, it has only a transitory value. This estimate of the law does not contradict Paul 's assertions in Rom 7:12 - 25. In representing the law as subordinate and temporary he does not impugn it as a divine institution.

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