Galatians 3:19-29

(Galatians 3:19 to Galatians 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:

Galatians 3:15; Galatians 3:15—[Κεκυρωμένην, simply “confirmed.” If anything be supplied, it need not be in the conditional form of the E. V.—R.]

Galatians 3:15; Galatians 3:15.—[“Disannulleth” is now obsolete, the simple form being of precisely the same signification. “Addeth thereto” i. e. new conditions.—R.]

Galatians 3:16; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:17; Galatians 3:17.—[The structure of this verse is cumbrous, but the insertion of “that” renders it still more so.—R.]

Galatians 3:17; Galatians 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 Galatians 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]

Galatians 3:17; Galatians 3:17.—[Ούκ —“cannot” may be implied, but is not expressed. “Invalidate” is preferable to “annul,” as the Greek word differs from that rendered “annul” (Galatians 3:15).—R.]

Galatians 3:18; Galatians 3:18.—[Κεχάρισται, “has given freely,” “given of grace.” We have no single word to express it—R.]

(Galatians 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 21:0 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.

(Galatians 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.

(Galatians 3:23-29.—The Epistle for New Year’s festival.)

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 Galatians 3:22-24. That the word χάριν does not necessitate this explanation, is shown by such passages as Luke 7:47; Luke 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 Galatians 3:23, sq.) “The seed” to whom the promise has been made (see on Galatians 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 (Galatians 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. Deuteronomy 33:2 (not in the original); and also Hebrews 2:2; Acts 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 (1 Timothy 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.

Galatians 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 (2 Peter 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 Galatians 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: Galatians 3:20 contains two loci communes, from which a possible inference (Galatians 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. Galatians 3:18; Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 3:15 sq. from the idea of a διαθἡκη, then also by the refutation of the objection that then the law is purposeless, Galatians 3:19-20. The question in Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:23-24), and with this the law itself then attained its end (Galatians 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 Galatians 3:21 in immediate connection with Galatians 3:20, and understands the question in Galatians 3:21 as seemingly resulting from Galatians 3:20, while the other explanations, though otherwise having much in their favor, assume that the thought breaks off with Galatians 3:20, and that in Galatians 3:21 Paul merely turns back to Galatians 3:17 or 19.—However a new explanation of Galatians 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 Galatians 3:20 and Galatians 3:21, but which, on the other hand, points out the connection between Galatians 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 1 Timothy 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 Galatians 3:19 is: ἄγγελοι—in these we have the plurality we were looking for. The law is, according to Paul, διαταγεὶς δἰ . (Comp. Galatians 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 Galatians 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. Acts 7:38.—It might also deserve attention, that in Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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.’ Galatians 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 Exodus 1:0), but, with the aspect that the last clause of Galatians 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.]

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 3:23.

Galatians 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 Galatians 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. Galatians 2:19) designated by Paul as a “dying,” and this operation of the law as a “killing.” Comp. 2 Corinthians 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. Romans 8:18.—R.]

Galatians 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 Galatians 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.”

Galatians 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 Galatians 3:23); but actual freedom came in only with faith. How?

Galatians 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 (Galatians 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.

Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Romans 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, Galatians 3:26; ὅσοι, Galatians 3:27). This Paul carries out in the concrete in Galatians 3:28.

Galatians 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 Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:29. But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed.—Because Christ Himself is Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:16; Galatians 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 Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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.” Galatians 6:15.—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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.”

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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.]

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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.

Galatians 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 Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:17-20): a) The law cannot abrogate the covenant of grace (Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:19-20). 3. The perfecting of the same by Christianity: a) necessity of this covenant even according to the law (Galatians 3:21), b) the condition of the same is faith in Christ (Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:15 sq.), b) as a testament confirmed by the death of Christ (Galatians 3:17), c) as a free irrevocable gift of grace (Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:15-18); (2) could not abrogate it, because it could not replace it = could not help to justification (Galatians 3:21-22).

Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:23). (2) When We begin a new life after Christ’s example, and become united in love (Galatians 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.

Galatians 3:19-29. How is the law related to the covenant of promise? (1) It is essentially distinct therefrom, Galatians 3:19-20; (2) yet it is not in conflict with it, for it does not aim to justify (Galatians 3:21-22); (3) it is on the other hand advantageous for it, Galatians 3:23-24; (4) it must however recede before it (Galatians 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.

[Galatians 3:27; Galatians 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.]

[Galatians 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 Galatians 3:21-29 each one is suited to immediate homiletical application. Special suggestions are not needed.

Footnotes:

Galatians 3:19; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:19; Galatians 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]

Galatians 3:19; Galatians 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.

Galatians 3:19; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:21; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:21; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:22; Galatians 3:22.—[The strongly adversative αλλά requires the insertion of “on the contrary” (Alford, Ellicott).—R.]

Galatians 3:22; Galatians 3:22.—(As the E. V. renders the same verb (συγκλείειν) Galatians 3:23, “shut up,” it is substituted here as less ambiguous than “hath concluded.”—R.]

Galatians 3:23; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:24; Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:25; Galatians 3:25.—[“Now” brings out the idea that it it so.—R.]

Galatians 3:27; Galatians 3:27.—[The aorist verbs in this verse are better translated by the simple past tense of the English.—R.]

Galatians 3:28; Galatians 3:28.—[The change of particles in Greek with this last pair is thus noted. On its peculiar force see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

Galatians 3:28; Galatians 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 Galatians 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.]

Galatians 3:29; Galatians 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. Ephesians 4:13.”—R.]

[52][In Galatians 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” (Galatians 3:26). Clearly the primary truth is “ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus;” the thought of Galatians 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 Galatians 5:14, Galatians 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.]