Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle to the Galatians. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Galatians 3:15-22
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
___________________
This section further clarifies the identity of the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham. Paul further illustrates this point by reminding his readers that the promise made to Abraham came 430 years *before* the law came to the Israelites. Therefore, the promise is separate and superior to the law.
We’ll jump into this section, first from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary at verse 15:
Verse 15
I speak after the manner of men — The figure that I am going to use is one taken from the ordinary civil relations between man and man, and therefore, it is left to be inferred, supplies an à fortiori argument in things relating to God, for men may change and break the most solemn engagements; God is absolutely faithful and unchangeable. The phrase translated “I speak after the manner of men” is found in the same, or a very similar form, in Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; 1 Corinthians 9:8, where see the Notes.
Though it be but a man’s covenant — This is well rendered in the Authorised version. A covenant, even though it is only between two men—though it is regulated by the provisions only of human law—does not admit of alteration or addition after it has once been signed and sealed; much more a covenant which depends on God.
Covenant — The word thus translated is that which gave its name to the “Old and New Testaments,” where a more correct rendering would be the “Old and New Covenants.” The word has both senses. It meant originally a “disposition” or “settlement,” and hence came, on the one hand, to be confined to a “testamentary disposition,” while, on the other hand, it was taken to mean a settlement arrived at by agreement between two parties. The first sense is that most commonly found in classical writers; the second is used almost entirely in the LXX. and New Testament. The one exception is in Hebrews 9:15-17, where the idea of “covenant” glides into that of “testament,” the argument rather turning upon the double meaning of the word.
Addeth thereto — Adds new clauses or conditions. Such new clauses could only be added by a second covenant. The reason why the Apostle introduces this point is that the Law might be supposed to restrict the bearings of the promise. It might be thought to add certain new and limiting conditions, without compliance with which the blessings of the promise could not be obtained. This was the position of the Judaising party, against which St. Paul is arguing.
covenant = διαθήκη
Transliteration – diathēkē(Key)
Pronunciation – dee-ath-ay’-kay
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From διατίθημι (G1303)
Greek Inflections of διαθήκη[?]
mGNT
33x in 6 unique form(s)TR
33x in 6 unique form(s)LXX
297x in 5 unique form(s)Dictionary Aids
Vine’s Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 2:106,157
KJV Translation Count — Total: 33x
The KJV translates Strong’s G1242 in the following manner:covenant (20x), testament (13x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
- a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
- a compact, a covenant, a testament
- God’s covenant with Noah, etc.
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
διαθήκηdiathḗkē, dee-ath-ay’-kay; from G1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):—covenant, testament.
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS G1242:
διαθήκη, -ης, ἡ, (διατίθημι);
1.a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid (German Verordnung, Willensverfϋgung): Galatians 3:15, where under the name of a man’s disposition is meant specifically a testament, so far forth as it is a specimen and example of that disposition [cf. Meyer or Bp. Lightfoot at the passage]; especially the last disposal which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will (so in Greek writings from [Aristophanes], Plato, legg. 11, p. 922 c. following down): Hebrews 9:16f
2.a compact, covenant (Aristophanes av. 440), very often in the Scriptures for בְּרִית (Vulg.testamentum). For the word covenant is used to denote the close relationship which God entered into, first with Noah (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9ff [cf. Sir. 44:18]), then with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity (Leviticus 26:42 [cf. 2 Macc. 1:2]), but especially with Abraham (Genesis 15 and Genesis 17), and afterward through Moses with the people of Israel (Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 5:2; Deuteronomy 28:69 (Deuteronomy 29:1)). By this last covenant the Israelites are bound to obey God’s will as expressed and solemnly promulged in the Mosaic law; and he promises them his almighty protection and blessings of every kind in this world, but threatens transgressors with the severest punishments. Hence, in the N. T. we find mention of αἱπλάκεςτῆςδιαθήκης (הַבְּרִיתלוּחות, Deuteronomy 9:9, 15), the tables of the law, on which the duties of the covenant were inscribed (Exodus 20); of ἡκιβωτὸςτῆςδιαθ. (הַבְּרִיתאֲרון, Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 3:6, etc.), the ark of the covenant or law, in which those tables were deposited, Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19; of ἡδιαθήκηπεριτομῆς, the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham, whose sign and seal was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff), Acts 7:8; of τὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκης, the blood of the victims, by the shedding and sprinkling of which the Mosaic covenant was ratified, Hebrews 9:20 from Exodus 24:8; of αἱδιαθῆκαι, the covenants, one made with Abraham, the other through Moses with the Israelites, Romans 9:4 [L text Tr marginal reading ἡδιαθήκη] (Wis. 18:22; Sir. 44:11; 2 Macc. 8:15; Epistle of Barnabas 9; [cf. Winer’s Grammar, 177 (166)]); of αἱδιαθῆκαιτῆςἐπαγγελίας, the covenants to which the promise of salvation through the Messiah was annexed, Ephesians 2:12 (συνθῆκαιἀγαθῶνὑποσχέσεων, Wis. 12:21); for Christian salvation is the fulfillment of the divine promises annexed to those covenants, especially to that made with Abraham: Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Romans 11:27; Galatians 3:17 (where διαθήκη is God’s arrangement,i. e.the promise made to Abraham). As the new and far more excellent bond of friendship which God in the Messiah’s time would enter into with the people of Israel is called, חֲדָשָׁהבְּרִית, καινὴδιαθήκη (Jeremiah 38:31 (Jer. 31:31)) — which divine promise Christ has made good (Hebrews 8:8-10; Hebrews 10:16) — we find in the N. T. two distinct covenants spoken of, δύοδιαθῆκαι (Galatians 4:24), namely, the Mosaic and the Christian, with the former of which (τῇπρώτῃδιαθήκῃ, Hebrews 9:15, 18, cf. 8:9) the latter is contrasted, as καινὴδιαθήκη, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24 (in both passages in R G L [in Matthew in Tr also]); Luke 22:20 [WH reject the passage]; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; κρείττωνδιαθήκη, Hebrews 7:22; αἰώνιοςδιαθήκη, Hebrews 13:20; and Christ is called κρείττονος or καινῆς or νέαςδιαθήκηςμεσίτης: Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. This new covenant binds men to exercise faith in Christ, and God promises them grace and salvation eternal. This covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death; hence, the phrases τὸαἷματῆςκαινῆςδιαθήκης, τὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκης (see αἷμα sub at the end), [Hebrews 10:29]; τὸαἷμάμουτῆςδιαθήκης, my blood by the shedding of which the covenant is established, Matthew 26:28 T WH and Mark 14:24T Tr WH (on two genitives after one noun cf. Matthiae, § 380, Anm. 1; Kühner, ii., p. 288f; [Jelf, § 543, 1, cf § 466; Winers Grammar, § 30, 3 Note 3; Buttmann, 155 (136)]). By metonymy of the contained for the container ἡπαλαιὰδιαθήκη is used in 2 Corinthians 3:14 of the sacred books of the O. T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded. Finally must be noted the amphiboly or twofold use [cf. Philo de mut. nom. § 6] by which the writer to the Hebrews, in Hebrews 9:16f, substitutes for the meaning covenant which διαθήκη bears elsewhere in the Epistle that of testament (see 1 above), and likens Christ to a testator — not only because the author regards eternal blessedness as an inheritance bequeathed by Christ, but also because he is endeavoring to show, both that the attainment of eternal salvation is made possible for the disciples of Christ by his death (Hebrews 9:15), and that even the Mosaic covenant had been consecrated by blood (Hebrews 9:18ff). This, apparently, led the Latin Vulgate to render διαθήκη wherever it occurs in the Bible [i. e. in the New Testament, not always in the Old Testament; see B. D. under the word Covenant, and B. D. American edition under the word Testament] by the word testamentum.THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission.BLB Scripture Index of Thayer’s
Genesis6:18; 9:9; 15; 17; 17:10Exodus20; 24; 24:8Leviticus26:42Deuteronomy5:2; 9:9; 9:15; 10:8; 29:1; 31:9Joshua3:6Jeremiah31:31Matthew26:28; 26:28Mark14:24; 14:24Luke1:72; 22:20Acts3:25; 7:8Romans9:4; 11:271 Corinthians11:252 Corinthians3:6; 3:14Galatians3:15; 3:17; 4:24Ephesians2:12Hebrews7:22; 8:6; 8:8; 8:8; 8:9; 8:9; 8:10; 9:4; 9:15; 9:15; 9:15; 9:16; 9:16; 9:18; 9:18; 9:20; 10:16; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20Revelation11:19
For Paul, this is a key point so understanding the meaning of the word covenant is key.
Continuing on, in Ellicott, at the next verse:
Verse 16
A parenthetical explanation of the true object of the promise. That promise was shown by its wording to have reference to the Messiah. It did not speak of “seeds,” but of “seed”—not of “descendants,” but of “descendant.” And the Messiah is, par excellence, the “descendant” of Abraham.
The object of this parenthesis is to prove a point which the Judaising opponents of the Apostle would not contest—viz., that the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham was reserved for that Messianic dispensation to which they themselves belonged. The Law therefore intervened, between the promise and its fulfilment, but, inasmuch as it was itself later than the promise, could not alter the terms of its fulfilment. If the promise had been fulfilled before the giving of the Law, and if the Messianic dispensation to which the Apostle and his readers belonged was not a fulfilment of the promise, then the Law might have had something to do with it: the restrictions of the Law might have come in to limit and contract the promise: the Gentiles might have been saddled with the obligations of the Jews. But it was not so.
To Abraham and his seed were the promises made — It was expressly stated that the promises were given “to Abraham and his seed.” The exact terms are worth noting.
The quotation appears to be made from Genesis 13:15, or Genesis 17:8. The word “promise” is put in the plural because the promise to Abraham was several times repeated—to Abraham first, and, after him, to the other patriarchs. The object of the promise, as recorded in the Book of Genesis, was, in the first instance, the possession of the land of Canaan; but St. Paul here, as elsewhere, gives it a spiritual application.
He saith not — The “he” is not expressed. We must supply either “God” or the promise given by God—”it says,” as in quotations from an authoritative document.
And to seeds, as of many; but as of one — The argument of the Apostle turns upon the use, both in the Hebrew and in the LXX., of a singular instead of a plural noun. Both in the Hebrew and in the LXX., however, the noun, though singular, is collective. It meant, in the first instance at least, not any one individual, but the posterity of Abraham as a whole. The Apostle refers it to Christ and the “spiritual Israel” (i.e., the Church, of which He is the Head), on the same principle on which, throughout the New Testament, the history of the chosen people under the old covenant is taken as a type of the Christian dispensation. We may compare Matthew 2:15, where an allusion to the exodus of Israel from Egypt is treated as a type of the return of the Holy Family from their flight into Egypt. Such passages are not to be regarded as arguments possessing a permanent logical validity (which would be to apply the rigid canons of Western logic to a case for which they are unsuitable), but rather as marked illustrations of the organic unity which the apostolic writers recognised in the pre-Christian and Christian dispensations. Not only had both the same Author, and formed part of the same scheme, but they were actually the counterparts one of the other. The events which characterised the earlier dispensation had their analogies—sometimes spiritual, sometimes literal—in the later.
The nature of the covenant with Abraham is, still today, a key differentiator between Zionist Christians and historical Christianity The former group insists that the text argues that the Jewish people *do* maintain a covenant with God and that God will eventually deliver unto them promises which He made to the Patriarchs. Historical Christianity, though, argues that these promises now belong to the Church, as they passed on to the Church through Christ, Abraham’s descendent.
I do wonder though whether there are limitations to the Zionist position. If Zionist Christians believe that there is an ethnic promise (in addition to the covenant that passed through faith) that will be kept to the genetic descendants of Abraham (as opposed to the spiritual descendants) then what do we do with those are who converts to Judaism? Ivanka Trump is a convert to Judaism. Is she included via marriage? If ethnic heritage is a key element of this covenant, would it matter if there had ever been a large-scale conversion of people to Judaism? It would seem so. We have reason to believe – though the scale is debated – that a mass conversion to Judaism actually did occur in Eastern Europe at some point between the 8th and 10th century. As the quoted section below shares, though, this is an emotionally charged issue because it cuts at the heart of an issue that overlaps faith and politics.
(more via wiki)
Conversion to Judaism is mentioned in the Khazar Correspondence and medieval external sources, such as Masudi’s “Meadows of Gold”. The authenticity of the former was long doubted and challenged, but the documents are now widely accepted by specialists as either authentic or as reflecting internal Khazar traditions. Archaeological evidence for conversion, on the other hand, remains elusive, and may reflect either the incompleteness of excavations, or that the stratum of actual adherents was thin. Conversion of steppe or peripheral tribes to a universal religion is a fairly well attested phenomenon, and the Khazar conversion to Judaism, although unusual, would not have been without precedent.
Jews from both the Islamic world and Byzantium are known to have migrated to Khazaria during periods of persecution under Heraclius, Justinian II, Leo III, and Romanus Lakapēnos. For Simon Schama, Jewish communities from the Balkans and the Bosphoran Crimea, especially from Panticapaeum, began migrating to the more hospitable climate of pagan Khazaria in the wake of these persecutions, and were joined there by Jews from Armenia. The Geniza fragments, he argues, make it clear the Judaising reforms sent roots down into the whole of the population. The pattern is one of an elite conversion preceding large-scale adoption of the new religion by the general population, which often resisted the imposition. One important condition for mass conversion was a settled urban state, where churches, synagogues or mosques provided a focus for religion, as opposed to the free nomadic lifestyle of life on the open steppes. A tradition of the Iranian Judeo-Tats claims that their ancestors were responsible for the Khazar conversion. A legend traceable to the 16th-century Italian rabbi Judah Moscato attributed it to Yitzhak ha-Sangari. Both the date of the conversion, and the extent of its influence beyond the elite, often minimised in some scholarship, are a matter of dispute, but at some point between 740 and 920 CE, the Khazar royalty and nobility appear to have converted to Judaism, in part, it is argued, perhaps to deflect competing pressures from Arabs and Byzantines to accept either Islam or Christianity.
The conversion of the Khazars to Judaism is an emotionally charged topic in Israel, and two scholars, Moshe Gil (2011) and Shaul Stampfer, (2013) have challenged the authenticity of the medieval Hebrew documents and argue that the conversion of the Khazar elite to Judaism never happened. Alex M. Feldman is critical of Stampfer and Gil’s dismissal of “overwhelming textual and archaeological evidence” of Khazarian Judaism, though agrees it is unlikely that Ashkenazim are descended from Khazarian Jews, he posits “a middle ground which can simultaneously accept Khazarian Judaism and doubt the Khazar-Ashkenazi descent theory advanced in dubious genetic studies.”
The quoted section above pokes at the precise issue and why it is so touchy. If Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazarian converts, rather than from ethnic Jews who migrated into Europe from Judea at the end of the 2nd temple period, this lessens their argument for divinely granted ownership of the Holy Land. And as the a large percentage of today’s Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews (31.8% of the Israeli Jewish population) the topic is fraught with religious and political heat. In the U.S., which is by far the nation of Israel’s largest and most powerful ally, two-thirds of the Jewish population identify as Ashkenazi.
Therefore, the topic at hand here in Galatians is an incredibly sensitive one, even today.
Continuing on in Ellicott:
The fulfilment of the promise is thus to be seen in the Messianic dispensation now begun. The Law, which was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, had no power to cancel it.
This verse contains the direct inference from the argument stated in Galatians 3:15. When a document has been sealed, no subsequent addition can affect it. The Law was subsequent to the promise; therefore the Law cannot affect it.
And this I say — Now, what I mean to say is this; the inference that I intend to draw is this.
Confirmed before of God — i.e., confirmed by God before the giving of the Law.
In Christ — These words are omitted in the group of oldest MSS., and should certainly be struck out. If retained, the translation should be: unto Christ—i.e., “with a view to Christ,” to find its fulfilment in Christ.
Four hundred and thirty years after — The giving of the Law from Mount Sinai is thus placed four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham. This would include the two periods of the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan and the sojourn in Egypt. According to another system of chronology, the sojourn in Egypt alone occupied four hundred and thirty—or, in round numbers, four hundred—years. Thus, in Genesis 15:13, Abraham is warned that his seed is to be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and to be afflicted “four hundred years.” In Exodus 12:40 it is expressly stated that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” In Acts 7:6 the prophecy of Genesis 15:13 is quoted: the people were to be “entreated evil four hundred years.” It is noticeable, however, that in Exodus 12:40, which is the least ambiguous of the three passages, the L.XX. and Samaritan Pentateuch add, “and in the land of Canaan,” so as to make the four hundred and thirty years cover the whole of the two periods, in agreement with the present passage. It has been thought that an examination of the genealogy of Levi favours the same reckoning. It would seem, however, that there were two systems of chronology really current. Josephus adopts both in different parts of his writings (comp. Ant. ii. 15, § 2, with Ant. ii. 9, § 1; Wars, v. 9, § 4), and both are represented in other writers of the period, or not very much later. It is possible that the shorter reckoning may have arisen from difficulties observed in the longer, though it may be questioned whether it does not raise greater difficulties itself.
For Paul, the law – though important – is not a part of the covenant between God and Abraham. How could it be? It came more than four centuries after the promise was given and it was not given as a new covenant. The law played a critical role in the history of Abraham’s offspring, but it did not change the promise. It was subsequent to it, and outside of it.
Paul explains why the law has no bearing on the promise in the next verse.
Verse 18
The fulfilment of the promise is unaffected by the Law. For it is not dependent upon the Law, or upon the Law and the promise combined (the Law modifying the promise), but upon the promise alone. The Law does not come in at all. Law and promise—in other words, contract and free gift—are incompatible ideas. But the land of Canaan was promised to Abraham as a free gift, and as a free gift the spiritual Canaan is thrown open to his spiritual descendants.
The inheritance — In the first instance, the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan; but here understood of the spiritual blessings of the Messianic kingdom.
Gave it — In the original a strong word: God hath freely given it. There is an antithesis to the idea of “covenant” or “contract,” in which both parties have to perform a part. The promise was given by God to Abraham freely, gratuitously, unfettered by any engagement on his side by the non-fulfilment of which it might be made void.
The term often used by Christian Zionists, toward the theology that Paul seems t be giving here, is called “Replacement Theology.” It is a pejorative, generally, and it relates to the idea that Christians wrongly believe they replaced ethnic Jews at the time of Christ. However, the term usually overlooks the fact that Christ was ethnically Jewish and that the first generation or two of Christians were predominantly ethnically Jewish. Gentile converts to Christianity were grafted onto a faith that at its roots was distinctly a product of Abraham and his descendants.
In Romans, Paul describes this with the analogy of grafting. The Gentiles are wild olive branches grafted onto the olive tree whose roots are in the faith of Abraham. Unbelieving Jews are compared to branches that are broken off of that same tree. The tree never actually changed. It was not “replaced.” However, you might understand why a broken-off branch might feel as though it was replaced by a branch that was later grafted onto the tree to which it used to be joined. The distinction is important though, as an immense about of blood and treasure have been spilled over it in recent centuries.
Verse 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 Romans 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 Galatians 3:16, Christ, the Messiah. The promise is said to have been made to Him in whom it is fulfilled, just as, in Galatians 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 Deuteronomy 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 (Acts 7:53): “Who have received the law by the disposition (as ordinances) of angels, and have not kept it;” and in Hebrews 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 Hebrews 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.
Paul is answering the obvious question that springs to mind in light of his argument. If the law is separate from the promise, then why have it? He argues it was put in place to deal with transgressions, until the time that the one to whom the promise made to Abraham arrives. The promise was thus made to Christ, through the promise made to Abraham, and the law existed to help the descendants of Abraham until the time of His arrival.
The reference to angels above is obscure, but it is well-answered by the note provided by Ellicott. This clause was probably less obscure at the time of Paul’s letter.
In verse 20, Paul answers another potential question that might arise, based on what he has just written.
Verse 20
The mention of the word “mediator” implies a contract to which there are at least two parties. But where there is a contract there must be also conditions, and if these conditions are not observed the whole falls to the ground. Such was the Law. The Law was not kept, and therefore the blessings annexed to it were forfeited. On the other hand, the promise depends upon God alone. He gave it, and He will assuredly keep it, no matter what man may do. God alone is concerned in it.
This passage is a conspicuous instance of the advance which has been made in New Testament exegesis. It is said to have received as many as 250 or 300 (according to another estimate, even 430) interpretations, but at the present moment there is a tendency to acquiesce in that given above, which, it is hoped, will be thought satisfactory.Now a mediator is not a mediator of one — The very idea of a mediator involves two parties at least. The Law had a mediator, therefore the Law involves two parties. In other words, it is a contract.
But God is one — On the other hand, God, the giver of the promise, stands alone: therefore the promise is not a contract; and, resting on God, it is indefeasible.
This verse also touches on another argument that is prevalent in the debate over Christian Zionism. Paul differentiates between contract and covenant. In one, there are two parties who must meet conditions and obligations in order for the agreement to continue. The law is viewed this way, with the Israelites and then the Jews failing to live up to their end of the bargain. This is contrasted with a promise, made by God, without condition. This relates only to God alone.
This comes up in the present, on the topic of Zionism, in the sense that it is argued that God made a promise, and that God keeps His promises, regardless of human failure. In that sense, Paul is saying that God made a promise to Abraham, but when given the law, He made a contract with the descendants of Abraham.
Continuing on:
The promises — Here, as in Galatians 3:16, the plural, because the promise to Abraham was several times repeated, and afterwards ratified to his descendants.
For if . . — The argument which follows begins with a concession. Though the Law was no substitute for the promise, it yet directly led up to it.
Given life — This is practically equivalent to “justified,” or “made righteous.” He who is justified has life—both true spiritual life in the present and eternal life in the future. That the Law could not justify had been shown in Galatians 3:11 and in Romans 3:20.
Verse 21 addresses another rebuttal that Paul expected – and had likely addressed in other venues prior to this letter. The law is not in opposition to the promise. It is simply insufficient to provide what the promise provides. Paul argues that the law was a tool, a response to the transgressions of the people, such that they might reign themselves in as much as possible, and a tool to help the people. Through the law they can see their own sin, and their inability to overcome it. This is important as a prelude for them to understand and accept (to believe in faith) in the gift provided by Jesus Christ through belief.
Verse 22
The scripture — Slightly personified.
Hath concluded — The same peculiar word occurs in Romans 11:32, with a similar sense. It means to “shut up,” “hem in,” “prevent from straying either to the right hand or to the left,” as a shepherd shuts up his flock in the fold.
All — This is put in the neuter gender, but only to give a more complete universality to the statement. What is meant is “all mankind.”
The promise by faith of Jesus Christ — The promise which originates in faith in Christ, which derives its fulfilment from faith, is due to faith.
Everything points toward, and is dependent upon, Jesus Christ. Paul’s argument here is that the promise made by God to Abraham does this and that it passes to everyone through belief in Jesus Christ. In this sense, his argument is also that the Judaizers are attempting to minimize Christ, and His work, and put Him beneath the yoke of the law.
