Galatians 3:16-22
|
16. Now
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. |
16.
Porro Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dicit,
Et seminibus, tanquam Deuteronomy multis, sed tanquam Deuteronomy
uno, Et semini tuo, qui est Christus. |
|
17. And this I say,
that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect. |
17. Hoc
autem dico: pactum ante comprobatum a Deo erga Christum, Lex, quae
post annos quadringentos et triginta coepit, non facit irritum, ut
abroget Promissionem. |
|
18. For if the
inheritance be of
the law, it is no
more of promise: but God gave it
to Abraham by promise. |
18. Nam
si ex Lege haereditas, non jam ex Promissione; atqui Abrahae per
Promissionem donavit Deus. |
16.
Now to Abraham, and
his seed. Before pursuing
his argument, he introduces an observation about the substance of the
covenant, that it rests on Christ alone. But if Christ be the foundation of
the bargain, it follows that it is of free grace; and this too is the
meaning of the word promise.
As the law has respect to men and to their works, so the promise has respect
to the grace of God and to faith.
He saith not, And to seeds.
To prove that in this place God speaks of Christ, he calls attention to
the singular number as denoting some particular seed. I have often been
astonished that Christians, when they saw this passage so perversely
tortured by the Jews, did not make a more determined resistance; for all
pass it slightly as if it were an indisputed territory. And yet there is
much plausibility in their objection. Since the word
seed is a collective noun, Paul
appears to reason inconclusively, when he contends that a single individual
is denoted by this word, under which all the descendants of Abraham are
comprehended in a passage already quoted, "In multiplying I will multiply
thy seed,
erz (zerang,)
or Kerz
(zargnacha,) as the stars
of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore." (Genesis
22:17.) Having, as they imagine, detected the fallacy
of the argument, they treat us with haughty triumph.
I am the more surprised that
our own writers should have been silent on this head, as we have abundant
means of repelling their slander. Among Abraham's own sons a division began,
for one of the sons was cut off from the family. "In Isaac shall thy seed be
called." (Genesis
21:12.) Consequently Ishmael is not included in the reckoning. Let us
come a step lower. Do the Jews allow that the posterity of Esau are the
blessed seed? nay, it will be maintained that their father, though the
first-born, was struck off. And how many nations have sprung from the stock
of Abraham who have no share in this "calling?" The twelve patriarchs, at
length, formed twelve heads, not because they were descended from the line
of Abraham, but because they had been appointed by a particular election of
God. Since the ten tribes were carried away, (Hosa
9:17,) how many thousands have so degenerated that they no longer hold a
name among the seed of Abraham? Lastly, a trial was made of the tribe of
Judah, that the real succession to the blessing might be transmitted among a
small people. And this had been predicted by Isaiah,
"Though thy people
Israel be as the sand of the sea,
yet a remnant of them shall return." (Isaiah
10:22.)
Hitherto I have said nothing
which the Jews themselves do not acknowledge. Let them answer me then; how
comes it that the thirteen tribes sprung from the twelve patriarchs were the
seed of Abraham, in preference to Ishmaelites and Edomites? Why do they
exclusively glory in that name, and set aside the others as a spurious seed?
They will, no doubt, boast that they have obtained it by their own merit;
but Scripture, on the contrary, asserts that all depends on the calling of
God; for we must constantly return to the privilege conveyed in these words,
"In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Genesis
21:12.) The uninterrupted succession to this privilege must have been in
force until Christ; for, in the person of David, the Lord afterwards brought
back by recovery, as we might say, the promise which had been made to
Abraham. In proving, therefore, that this prediction applies to a single
individual, Paul does not make his argument rest on the use of the singular
number. He merely shews that the word seed must denote one who was
not only descended from Abraham according to the flesh, but had been
likewise appointed for this purpose by the calling of God. If the Jews deny
this, they will only make themselves ridiculous by their obstinacy.
But as Paul likewise argues
from these words, that a covenant had been made in Christ, or to Christ, let
us inquire into the force of that expression,
"In thy seed shall
all the nations of the earth be blessed."
(Genesis
22:18.)
The Jews taunt the apostle
with making a comparison, as if the seed of Abraham were to be quoted as an
example in all disastrous omens and prayers; while, on the contrary, to
curse in Sodom or Israel is to employ the name of Sodom or Israel in forms
of cursing. This, I own, is sometimes the case, but not always; for to bless
one's self in God has quite a different meaning, as the Jews themselves
admit. Since, therefore, the phrase is ambiguous, denoting sometimes a cause
and sometimes a comparison, wherever, it occurs, it must be explained by the
context. We have ascertained, then, that we are all cursed by nature, and
that the blessing of Abraham has been promised to all nations. Do all
indiscriminately reach it? Certainly not, but those only who are "gathered"
(Isaiah
66:8) to the Messiah; for when, under His government and direction, they
are collected into one body, they then become one people. Whoever then,
laying disputing aside, shall inquire into the truth, will readily
acknowledge that the words here signify not a mere comparison but a cause;
and hence it follows that Paul had good ground for saying, that the covenant
was made in Christ, or in reference to Christ.
17.
The law which was
four hundred and thirty years after.
If we listen to Origen and Jerome and all the Papists, there will be
little difficulty in refuting this argument. Paul reasons thus: "A promise
was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the publication of
the law; therefore the law which came after could not disannul the promise;
and hence he concludes that ceremonies are not necessary." But it may be
objected, the sacraments were given in order to preserve the faith, and why
should Paul separate them from the promise? He does so separate them, and
proceeds to argue on the matter. The ceremonies themselves are not so much
considered by him as something higher, -- the effect of justification which
was attributed to them by false apostles, and the obligation on the
conscience. From ceremonies, accordingly, he takes occasion to discuss the
whole subject of faith and works. If the point in dispute had no connection
with obtaining righteousness, with the merit of works, or with ensnaring the
conscience, ceremonies would be quite consistent with the promise.
What, then, is meant by this
disannulling of the promise, against which the apostle contends? The
impostors denied that salvation is freely promised to men, and received by
faith, and, as we shall presently see, urged the necessity of works in order
to merit salvation. I return to Paul's own language. "The law," he says, "is
later than the promise, and therefore does not revoke it; for a covenant
once sanctioned must remain perpetually binding." I again repeat, if you do
not understand that the promise is free, there will be no force in the
statement; for the law and the promise are not at variance but on this
single point, that the law justifies a man by the merit of works, and the
promise bestows righteousness freely. This is made abundantly clear when he
calls it a covenant founded on Christ.
But here we shall have the
Papists to oppose us, for they will find a ready method of evading this
argument. "We do not require," they will say, "that the old ceremonies shall
be any longer binding; let them be laid out of the question; nevertheless a
man is justified by the moral law. For this law, which is as old as the
creation of man, went before God's covenant with Abraham; so that Paul's
reasoning is either frivolous, or it holds against ceremonies alone." I
answer, Paul took into account what was certainly true, that, except by a
covenant with God, no reward is due to works. Admitting, then, that the law
justifies, yet before the law men could not merit salvation by works,
because there was no covenant. All that I am now affirming is granted by the
scholastic theologians: for they maintain that works are meritorious of
salvation, not by their intrinsic worth, but by the acceptance of God, (to
use their own phrase,) and on the ground of a covenant. Consequently, where
no divine covenant, no declaration of acceptance is found, -- no works will
be available for justification: so that Paul's argument is perfectly
conclusive. He tells us that God made two covenants with men; one through
Abraham, and another through Moses. The former, being founded on Christ, was
free; and therefore the law, which came after, could not enable men to
obtain salvation otherwise than by grace, for then, "it would make the
promise of none effect." That this is the meaning appears clearly from what
immediately follows.
18.
If the inheritance be
of the law. His opponents
might still reply, that nothing was farther from their intention than to
weaken or disannul God's covenant. To deprive them of every kind of
subterfuge, he comes forward with the assertion, that salvation by the law,
and salvation by the promise of God, are wholly inconsistent with each
other. Who will dare to explain this as applying to ceremonies alone, while
Paul comprehends under it whatever interferes with a free promise? Beyond
all doubt, he excludes works of every description. "For," says he to the
Romans,
"if they which are
of the law be heirs, faith is made void,
and the promise made of none effect." (Romans
4:14.)
Why so? Because salvation
would be suspended on the condition of satisfying the law; and so he
immediately concludes:
"Therefore it is of
faith, that it might be by grace, in order that the promise might be sure to
all the seed." (Romans
4:16.)
Let us
carefully remember the reason why, in comparing the promise with the law,
the establishment of the one overturns the other. The reason is, that the
promise has respect to faith, and the law to works. Faith receives what is
freely given, but to works a reward is paid. And he immediately adds, God gave it to Abraham,
not by requiring some sort of compensation on his part, but by free promise;
for if you view it as conditional, the word gave,
(keca>ristai,)
would be utterly inapplicable.
Galatians 3:19-22
|
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. |
19. Quid
igitur Lex? transgressionum causa adjuneta fuit, donee veniret
semen, cui promissum fuerat, ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris. |
|
20. Now a mediator is not
a mediator of one,
but God is one. |
20. Porro
mediator unius non est; Deus autem unus est. |
|
21.
Is the law then 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. |
21. Lexne
igitur adversus promissiones Dei? absit; nam si data esset Lex, quae
posset vivificare, vere ex Lege esset justitia. |
|
22. But
the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by
faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. |
22. Sed
conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccatum, ut promissio ex fide Iesu
Christi daretur credentibus. |
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, (a]criv ou=,)
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.
1
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,
(eijv diataga<v ajgge>lwn,)
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.
2
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.
20.
Now, a mediator is
not a mediator of one.
Some are disposed to philosophize on this expression, and would make
Paul's meaning to be, that the twofold nature of Christ is not one in
essence. But that Paul is here speaking of the contracting parties, no man
of sound judgment entertains a doubt. And so they commonly expound it, that
there is no room for a Mediator, unless when one of the parties has a matter
to transact with the other. But why that statement should have been
introduced they leave undetermined, though the passage manifestly deserves
the most careful attention. There may, perhaps, be an Anticipation (pro>lhyiv)
of some wicked thought that might arise about a change of the divine
purpose. Some one might say, "As men, when they change their mind about
their covenants, are wont to retract them, so has it happened with the
covenants of God." If you take this to be the meaning, then, in the former
clause, Paul would acknowledge that men, who occupy one side of this
contract, are unsteady and changeable, while God nevertheless remains the
same, is consistent with himself, and partakes not of the unsteadiness of
men.
But when I
take a closer view of the whole subject, I rather think that it marks a
difference between Jews and Gentiles. Christ is not the Mediator of one,
because, in respect of outward character, there is a diversity of condition
among those with whom, through his mediation, God enters into covenant. But
Paul asserts that we have no right to judge in this manner of the covenant
of God, as if it contradicted itself, or varied according to the diversities
of men. The words are now clear. As Christ formerly reconciled God to the
Jews in making a covenant, so now he is the Mediator of the Gentiles. The
Jews differ widely from the Gentiles; for circumcision and ceremonies have
erected "the middle wall of partition between them." (Ephesians
2:14.) They were "nigh" to God, (Ephesians
2:13,) while the Gentiles were "afar off;" but still
God is consistent with himself. This becomes evident, when Christ brings
those who formerly differed among themselves to one God, and makes them
unite in one body. God
is one, because he always continues to
be like himself, and, with unvarying regularity, holds fixed and unalterable
the purpose which he has once made.3
21.
Is the law then
against the promises of God?
The certainty and steadiness of the divine purpose being admitted, we are
bound equally to conclude that its results are not contrary to each other.
Still there was a difficulty to be resolved, arising from the apparent
contradiction between the Law and the covenant of grace. This is, perhaps,
an exclamation. Dreading no farther contradiction, now that the point is
settled, Paul concludes, that the former arguments have placed it beyond a
doubt, and exclaims: "Who will now dare to imagine a disagreement between
the law and the promises?" And yet this does not prevent Paul from
proceeding to remove the difficulties that might still arise.
Before answering the question,
he expresses, in his usual manner, a high disdain of such folly; thus
intimating the strong abhorrence with which pious men must regard whatever
brings reproach on the Divine character. But another instance of high
address, which claims our notice, is found in this turn of expression. He
charges his adversaries with the offense of making God contradict himself.
For from him the Law and the promises have evidently proceeded: whoever then
alleges any contradiction between them blasphemes against God: but they do
contradict each other, if the Law justifies. Thus does Paul most dexterously
retort upon his adversaries the charge which they falsely and calumniously
brought against him.
For if there had been a law given.
The reply is (what is called) indirect, and does not plainly assert an
agreement between the law and the promises, but contains all that is
necessary to remove the contradiction. At first sight, you would say that
this sentence departs from the context, and has nothing to do with the
solution of the question; but this is not the case. The law would be opposed
to the promises, if it had the power of justifying; for there would be two
opposite methods of justifying a man, two separate roads towards the
attainment of righteousness. But Paul refuses to the law such a power; so
that the contradiction is removed. I would admit, says he, that
righteousness is obtained by the law, if salvation were found in it. But
what?
22.
The Scripture hath
concluded. By the word
Scripture is chiefly intended the law itself. It "hath concluded all under
sin," and therefore, instead of giving, it takes away righteousness from
all. The reasoning is most powerful. "You seek righteousness in the law: but
the law itself, with the whole of Scripture, leaves nothing to men but
condemnation; for all men, with their works, are pronounced to be
unrighteous: who then shall live by the law?" He alludes to these words,
"He who shall do
these things, shall live in them." (Leviticus
18:5.)
Shut out by
it, says he, from life through guilt, in vain should we seek salvation by
the law. -- The word translated all
(ta< pa>nta)
signifies all things, and
conveys more than if he had said all men;
for it embraces not only men, but every thing which they possess or can
accomplish.
That the promise by faith.
There is no remedy but to throw away the righteousness of works, and
betake ourselves to the faith of Christ. The result is certain. If works
come into judgment, we are all condemned; therefore we obtain, by the faith
of Christ, a free righteousness. This sentence is full of the highest
consolation. It tells us that, wherever we hear ourselves condemned in
Scripture, there is help provided for us in Christ, if we betake ourselves
to him. We are lost, though God were silent: why then does he so often
pronounce that we are lost? It is that we may not perish by everlasting
destruction, but, struck and confounded by such a dreadful sentence, may by
faith seek Christ, through whom we "pass from death into life." (1
John 3:14.) By a figure of speech, (metwnumi>a,)
in which the thing containing is put for the thing contained, the
promise denotes that
which is promised.
