Galatians Chapter 3: *This may need to be trimmed or summarized.
Gal. 3.1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (KJV)
3:1 O you foolish and thoughtless and superficial Galatians, who has bewitched you [that you would act like this], to whom--right before your very eyes--Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified [in the gospel message]? (Amplified)
A. O foolish Galatians
1. Foolish = to call someone a fool you are saying that they are mentally deficient
a. not understanding, thoughtless, unintelligent, unwise
b. Observe that when Paul calls the Galatians foolish, the word is meant in no
worse sense, than that of weakness in faith.
c. In that sense, and some others, the term evidently meant, reprobate.
(Robert Hawker)
d. Mat_25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
e. Tit_3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and
hating one another.
2. O infatuated people; you make as little use of reason as those who have none; you
have acted in this business as those do who are fascinated - they are led blindly
and unresistingly on to their own destruction.
B. who hath bewitched you
1. who
a. Definition: who? which? what? Usage: who, which, what, why.
b. Who has invaded your heart and stolen your ability to think?
2. Bewitched
a. to cast a spell on someone and bring them under their control
b. to slander, to bewitch Usage: give the evil eye to, fascinate, bewitch,
overpower.
c. bewitched—fascinated you so that you have lost your wits. Themistius says the
Galatians were naturally very acute in intellect. Hence, Paul wonders they
could be so misled in this case. (JFB)
d. used with pagan magical art
3. The Greek word for this is probably connected in origin with the Latin word from
which is derived our own “fascinate,” and the idea prominent in both is that which
is embodied in the popular superstition of the evil eye. This superstition lingers
still, especially in some southern countries, such as Italy and Spain. (Ellicott)
C. Now, a very striking metaphor runs through the whole of this question, which may easily be lost sight of by ordinary readers. You know the old superstition as to the Evil Eye, almost universal at the date of this letter and even now in the East, and lingering still amongst ourselves. Certain persons were supposed to have the power, by a look, to work mischief, and by fixing the gaze of their victims, to suck the very life out of them. So Paul asks who the malign sorcerer is who has thus fascinated the fickle Galatians, and is draining their Christian life out of their eyes. (MacLaren)
D. that ye should not obey the truth
The truth of the gospel. That you should yield your minds to falsehood and error. It should be observed, however, that this phrase is lacking in many manuscripts. It is omitted in the Syriac version; and many of the most important Greek and Latin Fathers omit it. (Albert Barnes)
E. before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
1. As Christ was "crucified," so ye ought to have been by faith "crucified with Christ," and so "dead to the law" (Ga 2:19, 20). Reference to the "eyes" is appropriate, as fascination was supposed to be exercised through the eyes. The sight of Christ crucified ought to have been enough to counteract all fascination. (JFB)
2. This of course does not imply that they had actually witnessed His Crucifixion—indeed the tense of the participle ‘crucified’ (better, ‘as having been crucified’) excludes such an explanation. One verb in the original stands for ‘hath been evidently set forth’. Render, ‘was set forth’. The same word occurs Romans 15:4, where it is rightly translated “were written before”. It is not probable that this can be the sense in this passage, first, because there is no specific mention of our Lord’s death by Crucifixion in the Messianic prophecies of the O.T.; and secondly, because in such prophecies Christ could not be said to have been described as crucified ‘before their eyes’. (Cambridge)
3. As if he had said, Who hath so deluded you, as to prevail with you thus to contradict both your own reason and experience? For ye have been as fully and clearly informed of the nature and design of Christ’s sufferings, as if they had been endured by him in your very sight; and you have witnessed their efficacy in procuring for you reconciliation with God, peace of conscience, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Joseph Benson)
Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (KJV)
3:2 This is all I want to ask of you: did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeying [the requirements of] the Law, or was it the result of hearing [the message of salvation and] with faith [believing it]?
A. Paul appeals to their own experience at their conversion, which alone should be sufficient to convince them of the error of their present position. This only, among other concessions which I might draw from your own spiritual experience. The ‘only’ indicates that this is sufficient. Was it by worn of law (law-works, Gesetzeswerke) that ye received the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the greatest of gifts.
1. He has communicated to believers through the gospel, regenerates and sanctifies and makes them children of God and heirs of eternal life.
2. In the apostolic age, the Spirit manifested itself also in extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, working of miracles. (Popular NT)
B. I need ask for nothing more to show that the Law is nothing to you, than that you should tell me this. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law? Was it in consequence of works of the Law that ye received the Spirit?
1. I came amongst you as an apostle, preaching the gospel, and upon your baptism laying my hands upon you; and the Holy Spirit came down upon you, proving the reality of his presence both by signs and miracles and powers, and also by the love, joy, and peace with which your hearts were filled; sealing at once the truth of my doctrine and your own position individually as recognized heirs of the kingdom of God.
2. You remember that time. Well, how was it then? Had there a word been then spoken touching meats or drinks, or washings of purification (besides your baptism into Christ), or circumcision, or care of ceremonial cleanness?
3. Had you attended to any one point whatever of Levitical ordinance? Had either you or I cast one thought in that direction? The "works of the Law" here referred to must still be works of ceremonial performance, not those of moral obedience; for repentance, the practical breaking off from sin, the surrender of the soul to God and to Christ in faith and loyal obedience, the outward assuming of the character of God’s servants, the purpose and inchoate (just begun and so not fully formed or developed; rudimentary) performance of works meet for repentance,—these dotings of compliance with the moral Law were there. The gift of the Spirit was evidenced by charisms plainly supernatural; but it comprised more than the bestowment of these. Or by the hearing of faith? Or was it in consequence of the hearing of faith? (Pulpit Comm.)
Gal. 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
3:3 Are you so foolish and senseless? Having begun [your new life by faith] with the Spirit, are you now being perfected and reaching spiritual maturity by the flesh [that is, by your own works and efforts to keep the Law]?
A. Are ye so foolish? Same as above. So thoughtless, as not to consider what you yourselves have experienced? (Benson)
B. having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
1. Begun your career as Christians in a manner so entirely spiritual—with the spiritual act of faith on your part, and with an answering gift of spiritual graces and powers.
2. What rendered the conduct of those Galatians the more reprehensible was, that Christ had been so blessedly preached to them, in all his fullness, and all-sufficiency; as if they had in reality been present at all the great events, which attended his crucifixion, and death, at Jerusalem. And yet, with all those strong convictions on their minds, they were turning aside, from seeking justification, in a full, free grace in Christ, to take to them recommendations, by the deeds of the law.
3. Paul appeals to them to show that the great benefits which they had received had not been in consequence of the observance of the Mosaic rites, but had come solely by the hearing of the gospel. (Barnes)
4. Particularly, the Holy Spirit, with all his miraculous and converting and sanctifying influences, had been imparted only in connection with the gospel. This was the most rich and most valuable endowment which they had ever received; and this was solely by the preaching of Christ and him crucified. (Barnes)
5. Having entered upon your Christian course under the light and grace of the Holy Spirit, received by faith in Christ and his gospel; do you now, when you ought to be more enlightened and renewed, more acquainted with the power of faith, and therefore more spiritual; expect to be made perfect by the flesh? (Benson)
6. Do you think to retain and complete either your justification or sanctification, by giving up that faith whereby you received both, and depending on the law, which is a gross and carnal thing when opposed to the gospel? (Barnes)
7. Are ye now made perfect by the flesh? - Are ye seeking to complete that spiritual religion, and to perfect these spiritual gifts, by the carnal rite of circumcision? (Adam Clarke)
Gal. 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
3:4 Have you suffered so many things and experienced so much all for nothing--if indeed it was all for nothing?
A. Apparently, the Galatians had (perhaps when Paul was among them) suffered for the principle of faith (probably at the hands of legalistic Christians). Would their departure from the principle of faith mean that this past suffering was in vain? (David Guzik)
B. We know that Paul did suffer persecution in this region. Acts 14 makes it clear that Paul and his companions were persecuted vigorously (Paul even being stoned and left for dead) by the Jews when they were among the cities of Galatia. Surely some of this persecution spilled over to the Christian congregations Paul left behind in Galatia. (David Guzik)
C. This vehement question is usually taken to be a reminder to the fickle Galatians that their Christian faith had brought upon them much suffering from the hands of their unbelieving brethren, and to imply an exhortation to faithfulness to the Gospel lest they should stultify their past brave endurance. Yielding to the Judaizing teachers, and thereby escaping the ‘offence of the Cross,’ they would make their past sufferings vain. (Alexander MacLaren)
Gal. 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:5 So then, does He who supplies you with His [marvelous Holy] Spirit and works miracles among you, do it as a result of the works of the Law [which you perform], or because you [believe confidently in the message which you] heard with faith?
A. The appeal by which the Apostle sought to check the defection of his thoughtless converts was not only an appeal to their past experience, when first they listened to his own preaching, but also to their present experience of facts that they saw actually going on among them. The first great outpouring of the Spirit, both in its miraculous and non-miraculous forms, though checked, had not entirely ceased; and the Galatians might thus see, simply by looking around them, that the channel which God chose for conveying His gifts was not that upon which the Judaizes insisted—the Law—but rather the preaching of faith. Where the faith implanted by the Apostle’s preaching still showed signs of vital growth, there the gifts of the Spirit were seen in connection with it; but not amongst the Judaizes and their party. (Ellicott)
B. The Greek means not so much “causes miracles to be wrought in your midst” as “implants in you miraculous powers.” The power to work miracles is regarded as a special faculty bestowed by God upon individual Christians. The means by which they become receptive of it is that enthusiastic condition aroused in them by faith. Mere formal obedience to a written law had no such efficacy. (Ellicott)
C. They had found peace with God through faith. Through faith they had received the fullness of the Holy Spirit. As they had begun, so let them finish! (F. B. Meyer)
Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
3:6 Just as Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS, [as conformity to God’s will and purpose--so it is with you also].
A. Just as Abraham BELIEVED GOD
1. In a sense, every great word must become flesh. So Paul pointed the Galatians to a man who embodied faith, Abraham. He was the man to whom God had made the great promise that in him all families of the earth would be blessed. He was the man whom God had specially chosen as the man who pleased him. Wherein did Abraham specially please God? It was not by doing the works of the law, because at that time the law did not exist; it was by taking God at his word in a great act of faith.
Hebrews 11:8-10 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara
2. Doubtless he does it in confirmation of that grand doctrine, that we are justified by faith even as Abraham was. The apostle, both in this and in the epistle to the Romans, makes great use of the instance of Abraham; the rather, because from Abraham the Jews drew their great argument (as they do at this day) both for their own continuance in Judaism, and for denying the Gentiles to be the church of God. (Benson)
3. Faith had been the means, too, of Abraham’s acceptance with God (Meyer)
4. When God said, “Thy seed shall be as the stars”; and it was accounted to him for righteousness — Because his belief of this promise implied that he entertained just conceptions of the divine power, goodness, and veracity. (Benson)
B. and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
1. When God said, “Thy seed shall be as the stars”; and it was accounted to him for righteousness — Because his belief of this promise implied that he entertained just conceptions of the divine power, goodness, and veracity. (Benson)
2. Long before he had become a Jew by the initial rite of Judaism, he had been a humble believer in God’s promise, on the basis of which he was reckoned righteous. Simple faith was the only condition that he had fulfilled, and the promise that all flesh should be blessed through him had been given when he was still a believing Gentile. Surely what had sufficed for the father of the faithful was good enough for his children! Let each reader see to it that he does not merely believe about Christ, but believes in Him, so as to be no longer under the curse, but within the blessing. (F. B. Meyer)
Gal. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
3:7 So understand that it is the people who live by faith [with confidence in the power and goodness of God] who are [the true] sons of Abraham.
A. From the example of Abraham's justification. This argument the apostle uses, Rom. 4. Abraham believed God, and that was accounted to him for righteousness (Gal_3:6); that is, his faith fastened upon the word and promise of God, and upon his believing he was owned and accepted of God as a righteous man: as on this account he is represented as the father of the faithful, so the apostle would have us to know that those who are of faith are the children of Abraham (Gal_3:7), not according to the flesh, but according to the promise; and, consequently, that they are justified in the same way that he was. Abraham was justified by faith, and so are they. (Matthew Henry)
B. God," says the text, "preached the Gospel to Abraham." The very oath sworn to him by his Maker was, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, designed to show to the heirs of promise, down the whole stream of time, the immutability of God’s counsels. God forbid, cries St. Paul, that anyone should think that the law—the schoolmaster who was to bring us to Christ—was against the promises of God! Though the sanctions of the two covenants might be different—a circumstance which does not in the least affect the moral obligation—the terms on which they dealt with man were the same. This development may be more complete, more uniform, more equable, more progressive, under the Gospel than under the law; but the direction of that development was ever, if not consciously towards Christ, at least towards Christianity. The life story of Abraham must have something in it that it concerns Christians of every age to know. It illustrates—
What faith is. Abraham to the age of St. Paul, before and above any saint in the annals of his race, was the representative of the nature of faith and its power; faith, not as opposed to reason, but as opposed to sight. It was not perfect, but it was real; it rested on the simplest virtues. (Sermon Bible)
Gal. 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the good news [of the Savior] to Abraham in advance [with this promise], saying, “IN YOU SHALL ALL THE NATIONS BE BLESSED.”
A. To confirm this, the apostle acquaints us that the promise made to Abraham (Gen_12:3), “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” In thee shall all nations be blessed, had a reference hereunto, Gal_3:8. (Matthew Henry)
B. And the Scripture - The word Scripture refers to the Old Testament. It is here personified, or spoken of as foreseeing. The idea is, that he by whom the scriptures were inspired, foresaw that. It is agreeable, the meaning is, to the account on the subject in the Old Testament. The Syriac renders this, "Since God foreknew that the Gentiles would be justified by faith, he before announced to Abraham, as the scripture saith, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
1. Foreseeing - That is, this doctrine is contained in the Old Testament. It was foreseen and predicted that the pagan would be justified by faith, and not by the works of the Law.
2. That God would justify the heathen - Greek: "The nations" - ta` e?´??? ta ethne¯ - the Gentiles. The fact that the pagan, or the Gentiles would be admitted to the privileges of the true religion, and be interested in the benefits of the coming of the Messiah, is a fact which is everywhere abundantly predicted in the Old Testament. As an instance, see Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 49:22-23; 60. I do not know that it is anywhere distinctly foretold that the pagan would be justified by faith, nor does the argument of the apostle require us to believe this. He says that the Scriptures, that is, he who inspired the Scriptures, foresaw that fact, and that the Scriptures were written as if with the knowledge of that fact; but it is not directly affirmed. The whole structure and frame of the Old Testament, however, proceeds on the supposition that it would be so; and this is all that the declaration of the apostle requires us to understand,
3. Preached before the gospel - This translation does not convey quite the idea to us, which the language of Paul, in the original, would to the people to whom he addressed it. We have affixed a technical sense to the phrase "to preach the gospel." It is applied to the formal and public annunciation of the truths of religion, especially the "good news" of a Saviour's birth, and of redemption by his blood. But we are not required by the language used here to suppose that this was done to Abraham, or that "the gospel" was preached to him in the sense in which we all now use that phrase. The expression, in Greek p??e????e??´sat? proeue¯ngelisato, means merely, "the joyful news was announced beforehand to Abraham;" scil. that in him should all the nations of the earth be blessed. It was implied, indeed, that it would be by the Messiah; but the distinct point of the "good news" was not the "gospel" as we understand it, but it was that somehow through him all the nations of the earth would be made happy. Tyndale has well translated it," Showed beforehand glad tidings unto Abraham." This translation should have been adopted in our common version.
4. In thee shall all nations be blessed - See the Acts 3:25 note; Romans 4:13 note. All nations should be made happy in him, or through him. The sense is, that the Messiah was to be descended from him, and the religion of the Messiah, producing peace and salvation, was to be extended to all the nations of the earth: see Genesis 12:3; compare the note at Galatians 3:16. (Barnes’ Notes)
Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
3:9 So then those who are people of faith [whether Jew or Gentile] are blessed and favored by God [and declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with Him] along with Abraham, the believer.
A. The scripture is said to foresee, because he that indited the scripture did foresee, that God would justify the heathen world in the way of faith; and therefore in Abraham, that is, in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, should be blessed; not only blessed in the seed of Abraham, but blessed as Abraham was, being justified as he was. This the apostle calls preaching the gospel to Abraham; and thence infers (Gal_3:9) that those who are of faith, that is, true believers, of what nation soever they are, are blessed with faithful Abraham. They are blessed with Abraham the father of the faithful, by the promise made to him, and therefore by faith as he was. It was through faith in the promise of God that he was blessed, and it is only in the same way that others obtain this privilege. (Matthew Henry)
B. "Are blessed;" are objects of benediction. The apostle gathers from the words cited in Gal_3:8 the two particulars, that there are who get to be blessed like Abraham and with him, and that it is by faith like Abraham’s, without works of the Law, that they do so. He seems to have an eye to the sense of Divine benediction which the Galatians had themselves experienced, when upon their simply believing in Christ the Spirit’s gifts had been poured forth upon them. The word "faithful" is inserted, ex abundanti almost, to mark the more explicitly and emphatically, the condition on which both Abraham and therefore others in him gain the blessing. This being "in Abraham," which is here predicated of all who gain justification and God’s benediction, is analogous to the image of Gentiles, being by faith "grafted," and by faith abiding, in the "olive tree," which we have in Rom_11:17, Rom_11:20. (Pulpit Comm.)
Gal. 3.10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
3:10 For all who depend on the Law [seeking justification and salvation by obedience to the Law and the observance of rituals] are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED (condemned to destruction) IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, SO AS TO PRACTICE THEM.”
A. He shows that we cannot be justified but by faith fastening on the gospel, because the law condemns us. If we put ourselves upon trial in that court, and stand to the sentence of it, we are certainly cast, and lost, and undone; for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, as many as depend upon the merit of their own works as their righteousness, as plead not guilty, and insist upon their own justification, the cause will certainly go against them; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them, Gal_3:10, and Deu_27:26. (MH)
B. The promise of God to Abraham, foreseeing that the Gentiles were going to be justified through faith, promised him this blessing of which you become partaker.
Now, those who were ready to go back to the law, those that were ready to look to the law as the basis for a righteous standing before God, Paul said, "Don’t you realize that," For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (CS)
C. PAUL'S argument seeks to drive his opponents into a corner from which there is no escape. “Suppose" he says, you decide that you are going to try to win God's approval by accepting and obeying the law, what is the inevitable consequence?” First of all, the man who does that has to stand or fall by his decision; if he chooses the law he has got to live by it. Second, no man ever has succeeded, and no man ever will succeed in always keeping the law. Third, if that being so, you are accursed, because scripture itself says that the man who does not keep the whole law is under a curse. Therefore, the inevitable end of trying to get right with God by making the law the principle of life is a curse. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
3:11 Now it is clear that no one is justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing] before God by the Law, for “THE RIGHTEOUS (the just, the upright) SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
A. To prove that justification is by faith, and not by the works of the law, the apostle alleges the express testimony of the Old Testament, Gal_3:11. The place referred to is Hab_2:4, “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” where it is said, The just shall live by faith; it is again quoted, Rom_1:17, and Heb_10:38. The design of it is to show that those only are just or righteous who do truly live, who are freed from death and wrath, and restored into a state of life in the favor of God; and that it is only through faith that persons become righteous, and as such obtain this life and happiness - that they are accepted of God, and enabled to live to him now, and are entitled to an eternal life in the enjoyment of him hereafter. Hence the apostle says, It is evident that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. Whatever he may be in the account of others, yet he is not so in the sight of God; for the law is not of faith - that says nothing concerning faith in the business of justification, nor does it give life to those who believe; but the language of it is, The man that doeth them shall live in them, as Lev_18:5. It requires perfect obedience as the condition of life, and therefore now can by no means be the rule of our justification. This argument of the apostle's may give us occasion to remark that justification by faith is no new doctrine, but what was established and taught in the church of God long before the times of the gospel. Yea, it is the only way wherein any sinners ever were, or can be, justified. (MH)
B. James said that "if we keep the whole law, and yet violate in one point, we are guilty of all" (Jas_2:10). Now, it doesn’t make any difference which point you violated, if you violate any point of the law, you’re guilty of the whole. If you want to be righteous before God by your works, then you’ve got to be perfect. And if you’re not perfect, you better listen then to the gospel of grace through faith, because you need it. So this is for imperfect people. The rest of you can go home at that point.
This scripture was given to God to the troubled prophet Habakkuk who was complaining to God at a time of national declension. The nation was going downhill fast. All kinds of corruption in government. And Habakkuk saw the corruption that was there. He has insight into the problem and he said, "God, please do me a favor. Don’t let me see anything else; I can’t take it. The whole system is going down the tubes and you’re not doing a thing about it." God said, "Habakkuk, I am doing a work, and if I told you what I was doing, you wouldn’t believe me." So Habakkuk said, "Well, try me." And God said, "I am preparing Babylon, and I am going to bring Babylon as my instrument to judge these people for their iniquity." "Wait a minute, Lord, that isn’t fair. We’re bad, yes, but hey, they’re horrible. They’re much worse than we. Why would you use a nation that is even more evil to punish us?" God said, "I told you you wouldn’t believe it." So Habakkuk said, "Well, Lord, I don’t know what to do. I’m just going to go sit in the tower, and I’m just going to wait on You and see what You’re going to do." (CS)
Gal. 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
3:12 But the Law does not rest on or require faith [it has nothing to do with faith], but [instead, the Law] says, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM [the things prescribed by the Law] SHALL LIVE BY THEM [instead of faith].”
A. The condition of life, by the law, is perfect, personal, and perpetual, obedience; the language of it is, Do this and live; or, as Gal_3:12, The man that doeth them shall live in them: and for every failure herein the law denounces a curse. Unless our obedience be universal, continuing in all things that are written in the book of the law, and unless it be perpetual too (if in any instance at any time we fail and come short), we fall under the curse of the law. (MH)
B. So, he went into the tower to just sit there and wait on God. And while he was sitting there, the word of the Lord came to Habakkuk the prophet saying, "Habakkuk, the just shall live by faith. Believe me. Just trust in me. Things are going to get tough, Habakkuk. The nation’s going to go into captivity, you know, but believe Me, trust in Me, the just shall live by faith."
So, Paul here again quotes this fantastic statement of God: the just, or those that are justified will be justified by faith. That is why the law cannot justify you. It cannot make you righteous. (CS)
C. But scripture has another saying, "It is the man who is right with God by faith who will really live" (Habakkuk 2:4). The only way to get into a right relationship with God, and therefore the only way to peace, is the way of faith. But the principle of law and the principle of faith are antithetic; you cannot direct your life by both at one and the same time; you must choose; and the only logical choice is to abandon the way of legalism and to venture upon the way of faith, of taking God at his word and of trusting in his love. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
3:13 Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS [crucified] ON A TREE (cross)”--
A. The curse is wrath revealed, and ruin threatened: it is a separation unto all evil, and this is in full force, power, and virtue, against all sinners, and therefore against all men; for all have sinned and become guilty before God: and if, as transgressors of the law, we are under the curse of it, it must be a vain thing to look for justification by it. But, though this is not to be expected from the law, yet the apostle afterwards acquaints us that there is a way open to our escaping this curse, and regaining the favor of God, namely, through faith in Christ, who (as he says, Gal_3:13) hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, etc. A strange method it was which Christ took to redeem us from the curse of the law; it was by his being himself made a curse for us. Being made sin for us, he was made a curse for us; not separated from God, but laid for the present under that infamous token of the divine displeasure upon which the law of Moses had put a particular brand, Deu_21:23. The design of this was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ - that all who believed on Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, might become heirs of Abraham's blessing, and particularly of that great promise of the Spirit, which was peculiarly reserved for the times of the gospel. Hence it appeared that it was not by putting themselves under the law, but by faith in Christ, that they become the people of God and heirs of the promise. Here note, 1. The misery which as sinners we are sunk into - we are under the curse and condemnation of the law. 2. The love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ towards us - he has submitted to be made a curse for us, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law. 3. The happy prospect which we now have through him, not only of escaping the curse, but of inheriting the blessing. And, 4. That it is only through faith in him that we can hope to obtain this favor. (MH)
B. How can we know that this is so? The final guarantor of its truth is Jesus Christ; and to bring this truth to he had to die upon a Cross. Now, scripture says that every man who is hanged on a tree is accursed (Deuteronomy 21:23); and so to free us of the curse of the law, Jesus had to become accursed. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might also come to the Gentiles, so that we would all receive [the realization of] the promise of the [Holy] Spirit through faith.
A. That the blessing of Abraham - The blessing which Abraham enjoyed, to wit, that of being justified by faith. “Might come on the Gentiles.” As well as on the Jews. Abraham was blessed in this manner before he was circumcised Rom_4:11, and the same blessing might be imparted to others also who were not circumcised; see this argument illustrated in the notes at Rom_4:10-12. In what circumstances, or time. Before or after he was circumcised? This was the very point of the inquiry. For if he was justified by faith after he was circumcised, the Jew might pretend that it was in virtue of his circumcision; that even his faith was acceptable, because he was circumcised. But if it was before he was circumcised, this plea could not be set up; and the argument of the apostle was confirmed by the case of Abraham, the great father and model of the Jewish people, that circumcision and the deeds of the Law did not conduce to justification; and that as Abraham was justified without those works, so might others be, and the pagan, therefore, might be admitted to similar privileges.
B. Through Jesus Christ - Since he has been made a curse for all, and since he had no exclusive reference to the Jews or to any other class of people, all may come and partake alike of the benefits of his salvation.
C. That we might receive the promise of the Spirit - That all we who are Christian converts. The promise of the Spirit, or the promised Spirit, is here put for all the blessings connected with the Christian religion. It includes evidently the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit; and all his influences in renewing the heart, in sanctifying the soul, and in comforting the people of God. These influences had been obtained in virtue of the sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus in the place of sinners, and these influences were the sum of all the blessings promised by the prophets.
(Albert Barnes)
D. Even at his most involved, and here he is involved, one is involved, one simple yet tremendous fact is never far from the mind and heart of Paul—the cost of the Christian gospel. He could never forget that the peace, the liberty, the right relationship with God that we possess, cost the life and death of Jesus Christ, for how could men ever have know what God was like unless Jesus Christ had died to tell them of his great love. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
3:15 Brothers and sisters, I speak in terms of human relations: even though a last will and testament is just a human covenant, yet when it has been signed and made legally binding, no one sets it aside or adds to it [modifying it in some way].
A. To this purpose the apostle urges the stability of the covenant which God made with Abraham, which was not vacated nor disannulled by the giving of the law to Moses, Gal_3:15, etc. Faith had the precedence of the law, for Abraham was justified by faith. It was a promise that he built upon, and promises are the proper objects of faith. God entered into covenant with Abraham (Gal_3:8), and this covenant was firm and steady; even men's covenants are so, and therefore much more his. When a deed is executed, or articles of agreement are sealed, both parties are bound, and it is too late then to settle things otherwise; and therefore it is not to be supposed that by the subsequent law the covenant of God should be vacated. The original word diathe¯ke¯ signifies both a covenant and a testament. (MH)
B. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men –
1. I draw an illustration from what actually occurs among people. The illustration is, that when a contract or agreement is made by people involving obligations and promises, no one can add to it or take from it. It will remain as it was originally made. So with God. He made a solemn promise to Abraham. That promise pertained to his posterity. The blessing was connected with that promise, and it was of the nature of a compact with Abraham. But if so, then this could not be effected by the Law which was four hundred years after, and the Law must have been given to secure some different object from that designed by the promise made to Abraham, Gal_3:19. But the promise made to Abraham was designed to secure the “inheritance,” or the favor of God; and if so, then the same thing could not be secured by the observance of the Law, since there could not be two ways so unlike each other of obtaining the same thing.
God cannot have two ways of justifying and saving people; and if he revealed a mode to Abraham, and that mode was by faith, then it could not be by the observance of the Law which was given so long after. The main design of the argument and the illustration here (Gal_3:15 ff) is to show that the promise made to Abraham was by no means made void by the giving of the Law. The Law had another design, which did not interfere with the promise made to Abraham. That stood on its own merits, irrespective of the demands and the design of the Law. It is possible, as Rosenmuller suggests, that Paul may have had his eye on an objection to his view. The objection may have been that there were important acts of legislation which succeeded the promise made to Abraham, and that that promise must have been superseded by the giving of the Law. To this he replies that the Mosaic law given at a late period could not take away or nullify a solemn promise made to Abraham, but that it was intended for a different purpose.
2. Though it be but a man’s covenant - A compact or agreement between man and man. Even in such a case no one can add to it or take from it. The argument here is, that such a covenant or agreement must be much less important than a promise made by God. But even that could not be annulled. How much less, therefore, could a covenant made by God be treated as if it were vain. The word “covenant” here (d?a??´?? diathe¯ke¯) is in the margin rendered “Testament;” that is, will. So Tyndale renders it. Its proper Classical signification is will or testament, though in the Septuagint and in the New Testament it is the word which is used to denote a covenant or compact; see the note at Act_3:25. Here it is used in the proper sense of the word covenant, or compact; a mutual agreement between man and man. The idea is, that where such a covenant exists; where the faith of a man is solemnly pledged in this manner, no change can be made in the agreement. It is ratified, and firm, and final. “If it be confirmed.” By a seal or otherwise.
3. No man disannulleth ... - It must stand. No one can change it. No new conditions can be annexed; nor can there be any drawing back from its terms. It binds the parties to a faithful fulfillment of all the conditions. This is well understood among people; and the apostle says that the same thing must take place in regard to God.
C. WHEN we read passages Iike this and the next one, we have to remember that Paul was a trained Rabbi, an expert in the scholastic methods of the Rabbinic academies. He could, and did, use their methods of argument, which would be completely cogent to a Jew, however difficult it may be for us to understand them. His aim is to show the superiority of the way of grace over the way of law. He begins by showing that the way of grace is older than the way of law. When Abraham made his venture of faith, God made his great promise to him. That is to say, God's promise was consequent upon an act of faith; the law did not come until the time of Moses, four hundred and thirty years later. But—Paul goes on to argue—once a covenant has been duly ratified, you cannot alter it nor add additional clauses to it. Therefore, the later law cannot alter the earlier way of faith. It was faith which set Abraham right with God; and faith is still the only way for a man to get himself right with God. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
3:16 Now the promises [in the covenants] were decreed to Abraham and to his seed. God does not say, “And to seeds (descendants, heirs),” as if [referring] to many [persons], but as to one, “And to your Seed,” who is [none other than] Christ.
A. Now the promise made to Abraham was rather a testament than a covenant. When a testament has become of force by the death of the testator, it is not capable of being altered; and therefore, the promise that was given to Abraham being of the nature of a testament, it remains firm and unalterable. But, if it should be said that a grant or testament may be defeated for want of persons to claim the benefit of it (Gal_3:16), he shows that there is no danger of that in this case. Abraham is dead, and the prophets are dead, but the covenant is made with Abraham and his seed. And he gives us a very surprising exposition of this. We should have thought it had been meant only of the people of the Jews. “Nay,” says the apostle, “it is in the singular number, and points at a single person - that seed is Christ,” (Matthew Henry)
B.1. Now to Abraham and his seed - To him and his posterity.
2.Were the promises made - The promise here referred to was that which is recorded in Gen_22:17-18. “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”
3.He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one ... - He does not use the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons, but he speaks in the singular number, as if only one was intended; and that one must be the Messiah. Such is Paul’s interpretation; such is evidently the sentiment which he intends to convey, and the argument which he intends to urge. He designs evidently to be understood as affirming that in the use of the singular number spe´?µa sperma (seed), instead of the plural spe´?µata spermata (seeds), there is a fair ground of argument to demonstrate that the promise related to Christ or the Messiah, and to him primarily if not exclusively. Now no one probably ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of an inspired man. Some of the difficulties in the passage are these:
a. The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It is to his seed; his descendants; to all his seed or posterity. Such would be the fair and natural interpretation should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.
b. The argument of the apostle seems to proceed on the supposition that the word “seed” sperma, that is, posterity, here cannot refer to more than one person. If it had, says he, it would be in the plural number. But the fact is, that the word is often used to denote posterity at large; to refer to descendants without limitation, just as the word posterity is with us; and it is a fact, moreover, that the word is not used in the plural at all to denote a posterity, the singular form being constantly employed for that purpose. (AB)
C. Paul takes one word in Abraham story and erects an argument upon it. As the Authorized Version translates Genesis 17:7, 8, God says to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee” and says of his inheritance, “I will give it unto thee and to thy seed after thee." (Seed is more clearly rendered descendant, as the Revised Standard Version has it.) Paul's argument is that seed is used in the singular and not in the plural; and that, therefore, God's promise points not to a great crowd of people but to one single individual: and—argues Paul—the one person in whom the covenant finds its consummation is Jesus Christ. Therefore, the way to peace with God is the way of faith which Abraham took; and we must repeat that way by looking to Jesus Christ in faith. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
3:17 This is what I mean: the Law, which came into existence four hundred and thirty years later [after the covenant concerning the coming Messiah], does not and cannot invalidate the covenant previously established by God, so as to abolish the promise.
A. The covenant which was confirmed before of God –
1.By God, in his promise to Abraham. It was confirmed before the giving of the Law. The confirmation was the solemn promise which God made to him.
2. In Christ - With respect to the Messiah; a covenant relating to him, and which promised that he should descend from Abraham. The word “in,” in the phrase “in Christ,” does not quite express the meaning of the Greek is Christon. That means rather “unto Christ;” or unto the Messiah; that is, the covenant had respect to him. This is a common signification of the preposition e??? eis “The law.” The Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
3.Which was four hundred and thirty years after - In regard to the difficulties which have been felt respecting the chronology referred to here; see the note at Act_7:6. The exact time here referred to was probably when Abraham was called, and when the promise was first made to him. Assuming that as the time referred to, it is not difficult to make out the period of four hundred and thirty years. That promise was made when Abraham was seventy-five years old; Gen_12:3-4. From that time to the birth of Isaac, when Abraham was a hundred years old, was twenty-five years; Gen_21:5. Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born; Gen_25:26. Jacob went into Egypt when he was one hundred and thirty years old; Gen_47:9. And the Israelites sojourned there, according to the Septuagint Exo_12:40, two hundred and fifteen years, which completes the number. This was doubtless the common computation in the time of Paul; and as his argument did not depend at all on the exactness of the reckoning, he took the estimate which was in common use, without pausing or embarrassing himself by an inquiry whether it was strictly accurate or not.
His argument was the same, whether the Law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, or only two hundred years. The argument is, that a law given after the solemn promise which had been made and confirmed, could not make that promise void. It would still be binding according to the original intention; and the Law must have been given for some purpose entirely different from that of the promise. No one can doubt the soundness of this argument. The promise to Abraham was of the nature of a compact. But no law given by one of the parties to a treaty or compact can disannul it, Two nations make a treaty of peace, involving solemn promises, pledges, and obligations. No law made afterward by one of the nations can disannul or change that treaty. Two men make a contract with solemn pledges and promises. No act of one of the parties can change that, or alter the conditions. So it was with the covenant between God and Abraham. God made to him solemn promises which could not be affected by a future giving of a law. God would feel himself to be under the most solemn obligation to fulfil all the promises which he had made to him.
Gal. 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
3:18 For if the inheritance [of what was promised] is based on [observing] the Law [as these false teachers claim], it is no longer based on a promise; however, God granted it to Abraham [as a gift] by virtue of His promise.
A. So that the covenant is still in force; for Christ abideth for ever in his person, and in his spiritual seed, who are his by faith. And if it be objected that the law which was given by Moses did disannul this covenant, because that insisted so much upon works, and there was so little in it of faith or of the promised Messiah, he answers that the subsequent law could not disannul the previous covenant or promise (Gal_3:18): If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but, says he, God gave it to Abraham by promise, and therefore it would be inconsistent with his holiness, wisdom, and faithfulness, by any subsequent act to set aside the promise, and so alter the way of justification which he had thus established. If the inheritance was given to Abraham by promise, and thereby entailed upon his spiritual seed, we may be sure that God would not retract that promise; for he is not a man that he should repent. (MH)
B. 1. For if the inheritance - The inheritance promised to Abraham. The sum of the promise was, that “he should be the heir of the world;” see Rom_4:13, and the note at that verse. To that heirship or inheritance Paul refers here, and says that it was an essential part of it that it was to be in virtue of the promise made to him, and not by fulfilling the Law.
2. Be of the law - If it is by observing the Law of Moses; or if it come in any way by the fulfilling of law. This is plain. Yet the Jews contended that the blessings of justification and salvation were to be in virtue of the observance of the Law of Moses. But if so, says Paul, then it could not be by the promise made to Abraham, since there could not be two ways of obtaining the same blessing.
3. But God gave it to Abraham by promise - That, says Paul, is a settled point. It is perfectly clear; and that is to be held as an indisputable fact, that the blessing was given to Abraham by a promise. That promise was confirmed and ratified hundreds of years before the Law was given, and the giving of the Law could not affect it. But that promise was, that he would be the ancestor of the Messiah, and that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Of course, if they were to be blessed in this way, then it was not to be by the observance of the Law, and the Law must have been given for a different purpose. What that was, he states in the following verses. (AB)
Gal. 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
3:19 Why, then, the Law [what was its purpose]? It was added [after the promise to Abraham, to reveal to people their guilt] because of transgressions [that is, to make people conscious of the sinfulness of sin], and [the Law] was ordained through angels and delivered to Israel by the hand of a mediator [Moses, the mediator between God and Israel, to be in effect] until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
A. The apostle having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he did too much derogate (detract from) from the law, and render it altogether useless, he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given. It might be asked, “If that promise be sufficient for salvation, wherefore then serveth the law? Or, Why did God give the law by Moses?” To this he answers,
1. The law was added because of transgressions, Gal_3:19. It was not designed to disannul the promise, and to establish a different way of justification from that which was settled by the promise; but it was added to it, annexed on purpose to be subservient to it, and it was so because of transgressions. The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it; for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom_3:20), and the law entered that sin might abound, Rom_5:20. And it was also intended to restrain them from the commission of sin, to put an awe upon their minds, and be a curb upon their lusts, that they should not run into that excess of riot to which they were naturally inclined; and yet at the same time it was designed to direct them to the true and only way whereby sin was to be expiated, and wherein they might obtain the pardon of it; namely, through the death and sacrifice of Christ, which was the special use for which the law of sacrifices and purifications was given.
The apostle adds that the law was given for this purpose till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; that is, either till Christ should come (the principle seed referred to in the promise, as he had before shown), or till the gospel dispensation should take place, when Jews and Gentiles, without distinction, should, upon believing, become the seed of Abraham. The law was added because of transgressions, till this fulness of time, or this complete dispensation, should come. But when the seed came, and a fuller discovery of divine grace in the promise was made, then the law, as given by Moses, was to cease; that covenant, being found faulty, was to give place to another, and a better, Heb_8:7, Heb_8:8. And though the law, considered as the law of nature, is always in force, and still continues to be of use to convince men of sin and to restrain them from it, yet we are now no longer under the bondage and terror of that legal covenant. The law then was not intended to discover another way of justification, different from that revealed by the promise, but only to lead men to see their need of the promise, by showing them the sinfulness of sin, and to point them to Christ, through whom alone they could be pardoned and justified. (MH)
B. Wherefore then serveth the law? –
1.This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the Law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing; and is the Law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this, the apostle replies that the Law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator.
2. It was added - ( prosetethe¯). It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement on the part of God for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that.
3. Because of transgressions - On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the Law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter people from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince people of it, and thus to be “ancillary” to, and preparatory to the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the Law of God as given to apostate man, and this use of the Law still exists. This effect of the Law is accomplished:
a. By showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.
b. It shows us the nature and extent of transgression by showing us how far we have departed from it.
c. It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus suited to reveal its true nature.
d. It is suited to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is.
e. It thus shows its own inability to justify and save people, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead people to the cross of the Redeemer. At the same time,
f. The Law was given with reference to transgressions in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties.
When Paul says that the Law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the Law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes (Calvin), but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows people their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the Law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which people must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that Law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of people.
4. Till the seed should come ... - The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. It is not implied here that the Law would be of no use after that; but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should come, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing people the nature of transgression and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete and in many respects unintelligible until he came - as one part of a tally (an account kept by means of a tally) is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save people, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying people, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven.
5. And it was ordained by angels - That is, the Law was ordained by angels. The word ordained here diatageis usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here that the Law was ordained by angels. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the Law, but it was a common opinion among the Jews that the Law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion; compare Heb_2:2.
6. In the hand - That is, under the direction, or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was under the control of a Mediator however, and others suppose that this means simply by (per); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a Mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the Mediator here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the Law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation however will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word Mediator.
7. Of a Mediator - The word “Mediator” means properly one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius, or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man. There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson (Lexicon), Chandler, and many others suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should he regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are:
a. That the name Mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures.
b. The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament.
c. It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument, on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle’s reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the Law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him until he, the “promised seed,” should come.
d. It is only by such an interpretation that the following “vexed” verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible.
C. These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the Law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For:
1. It was given hundreds of years after the promise.
2. It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to, and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise.
3. It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that plan should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing that the Law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption. (AB)
D. THIS is one of the most difficult passages Paul ever wrote, so difficult that there are almost three hundred different interpretations of it! Let us begin by remembering that Paul is still seeking to demonstrate the superiority of the way of grace and faith over the way of law. He makes four points about the law.
1. Why introduce the law at all? It was introduced, as Paul puts it, for the sake of transgressions. What he means is that where there is no law there is no sin. A man cannot be condemned for doing wrong if he did not know that it was wrong. Therefore the function of the law is to define sin. But, while the law can and does define sin, it can do nothing whatever to cure it. It is like a doctor who is an expert in diagnosis but who is helpless to clear up the trouble which he has diagnosed.
2. The law was not given direct by God. In the old story in Exodus 20 it was given direct to Moses; but in the days of Paul the Rabbis were so impressed by the holiness and the
remoteness of God that they believed that it was quite impossible for him to deal direct with men; therefore they introduced the idea that the law was given first to angels and then by the angels to Moses (cp. Acts 7: 53; Hebrews 2: 2). Here Paul is using the Rabbinic thoughts of his time. The law is at a double remove from God, given first to angels, and then to a mediator: and the mediator is Moses. Compared with the promise, which was given directly by God, the law is a second-hand thing.
3. Now we come to that extraordinarily difficult sentence—"There can be no such thing as a mediator of one; and God is one." What is Paul's thought here? An agreement
founded on law always involves two people, the person who gives it and the person who accepts it; and it depends on both sides keeping it. That was the position of those who put their trust in the law. Break the law and the whole agreement was undone. But a promise depends on only one person. The way of grace depends entirely on God; it is his promise. Man can do nothing to alter that. He may sin, but the love and the grace of God stand unchanged. To Paul it was the weakness
of the law that it depended on two persons, the law-giver and the law-keeper; and man had wrecked it. Grace is entirely of God; man cannot undo it; and surely it is better to depend on the grace of the unchanging God than on the hopeless efforts of helpless men.
4. Is, then, the law antithetic to grace? Logically Paul should answer, “Yes" but, in fact, he answers, "No." He says that scripture has shut up everyone under sin. He is thinking of Deuteronomy 27: 26 where it is said that everyone who does not conform to the words of the law is cursed. In fact, that
means everyone, because no one ever has, or ever will, perfectly keep the law. What, then, is the consequence of the law? It is to drive everyone to seek grace, because it has proved a man's helplessness. This is a thought that Paul will soon develop in the next chapter: here he only suggests it. Let a man try to get into a right relationship with God by the way of the law. He will find he cannot do it and will be driven to see that all he can do is to accept the wonderful grace of which Jesus Christ came to tell men. (Barclay)
Gal. 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
3:20 Now the mediator or go-between [in a transaction] is not [needed] for just one party; whereas God is only one [and was the only One giving the promise to Abraham, but the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity depended on both].
A. *This passage is a conspicuous instance of the advance which has been made in New Testament exegesis. It is said to have received as many as 250 or 300 (according to another estimate, even 430) interpretations, but at the present moment there is a tendency to acquiesce in that given above, which, it is hoped, will be thought satisfactory. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.—The very idea of a mediator involves two parties at least. The Law had a mediator, therefore the Law involves two parties. In other words, it is a contract.
But God is one.—On the other hand, God, the giver of the promise, stands alone: therefore the promise is not a contract; and, resting on God, it is indefeasible (not able to be lost, annulled, or overturned).
B. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one — There must be two parties, or there can be no place or use for a mediator: but God, who made the free promise to Abraham, is only one of the parties; the other, Abraham, was not present at the time of Moses. Therefore, in the affair of the promise, Moses had nothing to do: the law, wherein he was concerned, was a transaction of quite another nature. Or, as Dr. Doddridge paraphrases this difficult passage more at large, following, as he says, Mr. Locke’s interpretation, not without attentively comparing a variety of others, “A mediator is not merely the mediator of one party, but at least of two, between which he must pass, and, by the nature of his office, transact for both; but God is only one party in that covenant made with Abraham, and Abraham and his seed, including all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles, are the other. As Moses, therefore, when the law was given, stood at that time, between the Lord and Israel, (Deuteronomy 5:5,) and did not pass between the whole collective body of Abraham’s seed and the blessed God; so nothing was transacted by him with relation to those for whom he did not appear, and consequently nothing in that covenant wherein he did mediate could disannul the promise, or affect the right accruing to any from a prior engagement, in which the Gentiles were concerned as well as the Israelites; for no covenant can be altered but by the mutual consent of both parties; and in what was done at mount Sinai by the mediation of Moses, there was none to appear for the Gentiles; so that this transaction between God and the Israelites could have no force to abrogate the promise, which extended likewise to the Gentiles, or to vacate a covenant that was made between parties of which one only was there.” (Benson)
C. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one ... –
1. This verse has given great perplexity to commentators. "There is, unquestionably," says Bloomfield, "no passage in the New Testament that has so much, and to so little purpose, exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators as the present, which seems to defy all attempts to elicit any satisfactory sense, except by methods so violent as to be almost the same thing as writing the passage afresh." In regard, however, to the truth of the declarations here - that "a mediator is not a mediator of one," and that "God is one" - there can be no doubt, and no difficulty. The very idea of a mediator supposes that there are two parties or persons between whom the mediator comes either to reconcile them or to bear some message from the one to the other; and it is abundantly affirmed also in the Old Testament that there is but one God; see Deuteronomy 6:4. (Barnes)
2. After referring to a number of works on the passage, Rosenmuller adopts the following interpretation, proposed by Noessett, as expressing the true sense. But he (that is, Moses) is not a mediator of one race (to wit, the Abrahamic), but God is the same God of them and of the Gentiles. The sense according to this is, that Moses had not reference in his office as mediator or as internuncius ( a messenger between two parties ) to the descendants of Abraham, or to that one seed or race, referred to in the promise. (Barnes)
3. According to another interpretation, the sense is, that Moses was mediator of one part of Abraham's seed, the Israelites; but was not the mediator of the other part of that seed, the Gentiles; yet there was the same God to both parties, who was equally ready to justify both. Locke has expressed a view of the passage which differs somewhat from this, but which has quite as much plausibility. According to his exposition it means, that God was but one of the parties to the promise. The Jews and the Gentiles made up the other. But at the giving of the Law Moses was a mediator only between God and the Israelites, and, therefore, could not transact anything which would tend to the disannulling of the promise which was between God and the Jews and Gentiles together, the other party to the promise. Or in other words, at the covenant made on Mount Sinai, there was really present but one of the parties, and consequently nothing could be done that would affect the other. (Barnes)
D. As a further proof that the law was not designed to vacate the promise, the apostle adds, It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. It was given to different persons, and in a different manner from the promise, and therefore for different purposes. The promise was made to Abraham, and all his spiritual seed, including believers of all nations, even of the Gentiles as well as the Jews; but the law was given to the Israelites as a peculiar people, and separated from the rest of the world. And, whereas the promise was given immediately by God himself, the law was given by the ministry of angels, and the hand of a mediator. Hence it appeared that the law could not be designed to set aside the promise; for (Gal_3:20), A mediator is not a mediator of one, of one party only; but God is one, but one party in the promise or covenant made with Abraham: and therefore it is not to be supposed that by a transaction which passed only between him and the nation of the Jews he should make void a promise which he had long before made to Abraham and all his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles. This would not have been consistent with his wisdom, nor with his truth and faithfulness. Moses was only a mediator between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham; and therefore the law that was given by him could not affect the promise made to them, much less be subversive of it. (MH)
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a system of law had been given which could impart life, then righteousness (right standing with God) would actually have been based on law.
A. (21-24) If the Law was thus inferior to the promise, does it therefore follow that it is contrary to it? By no means. The Law could not indeed give life; it could not justify, or place in a state of righteousness. Its real result was rather to place all men in a state of sin. But by so doing it prepared the way for the fulfilment of the promise in all who put faith in Christ. The Law was a close and strict, yet salutary, discipline to make us fit for faith in Christ.
B. The promises.—Here, as in Galatians 3:16, the plural, because the promise to Abraham was several times repeated, and afterwards ratified to his descendants.
For if . . .—The argument which follows begins with a concession. Though the Law was no substitute for the promise, it yet directly led up to it.
Given life.—This is practically equivalent to “justified,” or “made righteous.” He who is justified has life—both true spiritual life in the present and eternal life in the future. That the Law could not justify had been shown in Galatians 3:11 and in Romans 3:20. (Ellicott)
C. Galatians 3:21-22. Is the law then — Which requires perfect obedience, and subjects all that in any respect violate it, to the curse, against, or contrary to, the promises of God — Wherein he declares that he will justify men by faith? God forbid — That we should intimate anything of that kind! On the contrary, it was intended to be subservient to the promise, by leading those who were under it to a higher and better dispensation, by subjecting them to the curse, without giving them the least hope of mercy, to oblige them to flee to the promises for justification. For if there had been a law given which could have given life — Either spiritual or eternal; if any law, considered in itself alone, could have been a sufficient mean of justification and eternal happiness, then verily righteousness — Justification, and the blessings consequent thereon; would have been by the Mosaic law — Which is so holy, just, and good in all its moral precepts. By this the apostle shows that the law of Moses was utterly incapable of giving the Jews life and salvation; because, considered in itself, independent of the covenant of grace, it neither promised them the pardon of sin on their repentance, nor the influences of the divine Spirit to enable them to overcome and mortify the corruption of their nature; and of consequence, neither gave them a title to, nor a meetness for, eternal life. Justification, therefore, was not to be obtained by that law. On the contrary, the Scripture — Wherein that law is written; hath concluded all under sin — Hath shut them up together, (so the word s??e??e?se? properly signifies,) as in a prison, under sentence of death; that is, hath declared them all to be so shut up; that the promise — That is, the blessing of life and salvation, promised through faith in Jesus Christ, might be freely given to them that truly believe in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel. (Benson)
D. "Is the law (which involves a mediator) against the promises of God (which are without a mediator, and rest on God alone and immediately)? God forbid."
life—The law, as an externally prescribed rule, can never internally impart spiritual life to men naturally dead in sin, and change the disposition. If the law had been a law capable of giving life, "verily (in very reality, and not in the mere fancy of legalists) righteousness would have been by the law (for where life is, there righteousness, its condition, must also be)." But the law does not pretend to give life, and therefore not righteousness; so there is no opposition between the law and the promise. Righteousness can only come through the promise to Abraham, and through its fulfilment in the Gospel of grace. (JFB)
E. Having thus sharply contrasted the two covenants, the Apostle anticipates an objection—‘You say that God is One. He is the Author both of the law and of the promises. How then can there be the opposition between them which your argument would imply?’ To this the answer is decisive. The difference is such as to display a marked contrast, not such as to involve antagonism. Otherwise God might seem in giving the law to have retracted the promises. Away with such a supposition.
for if there had been a law given … by the law] Life had been forfeited by sin; life must be recovered by righteousness. The promise assured life to the believer through righteousness imputed; the law offered life as the reward of a perfect obedience. Had the conditions of the law been less strict, or had man been able to fulfil them, then righteousness (and life) had come to men from the law. Hence there is no antagonism between the two covenants. ‘To give life’ was the end of both. The law failed to do this; the promise succeeded. Man could not obey perfectly: he could believe, and so obtain life. (Cambridge Bible)
Gal. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
3:22 But the Scripture has imprisoned everyone [everything--the entire world] under sin, so that [the inheritance, the blessing of salvation] which was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe [in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s precious Son].
A. The Apostle uses here a striking and solemn figure, which is much veiled for the English reader by the ambiguity attaching to the word ‘concluded.’ It literally means ‘shut up,’ and is to be taken in its literal sense of confining, and not in its secondary sense of inferring. So, then, we are to conceive of a vast prison-house in which mankind is confined. And then, very characteristically, the Apostle passes at once to another metaphor when he goes on to say ‘under sin.’ What a moment before had presented itself to his vivid imagination as a great dungeon is now represented as a heavy weight, pressing down upon those beneath; if, indeed, we are not, perhaps, rather to think of the low roof of the dark dungeon as weighing on the captives.
Further, he says that Scripture has driven men into this captivity. That, of course, cannot mean that revelation makes us sinners, but it does mean that it makes us more guilty, and that it declares the fact of human sinfulness as no other voice has ever done. And then the grimness of the picture is all relieved and explained, and the office ascribed to God’s revelation harmonized with God’s love, by the strong, steady beam of light that falls from the last words, which tell us that the prisoners have not been bound in chains for despair or death, but in order that, gathered together in a common doleful destiny, they may become recipients of a common blessed salvation, and emerge into liberty and light through faith in Jesus Christ.
So here are three things--the prison-house, its guardian, and its breaker. ‘The Scripture hath shut up all under sin, in order that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given unto all them that believe.’ (MacLaren)
B. ut the Scripture, &c.] The impossibility (Theod. Mops.) of obtaining righteousness by legal obedience is proved by the plain testimony of Scripture. It is noteworthy that in this momentous argument St Paul appeals not to conscience or experience, but to God’s Word written.
the Scripture hath concluded] Not the O. T. generally, but the particular passage referred to in ch. Galatians 2:16, viz. Psalm 143:2. This view is confirmed by the tense employed ‘concluded’, rather than the perfect ‘hath concluded’. This personification of Scripture is remarkable, investing it with the dignity and authority of a Divine utterance.
concluded] i.e. ‘shut up’, leaving no means of escape. The same word occurs Romans 11:32, ‘God shut up all men into disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all’.
all] Lit. ‘all things’, neuter. In the passage just quoted from Romans we have ‘all men’. This is more comprehensive, not because ‘no exception is made, not even in favor of the Virgin Mary, as the Vatican decree would require’ (Dr Schaff)—though this is true,—but because men’s purest aims, and noblest efforts, and holiest achievements are tainted with sin.
that the promise … believe] The promise is here put for the thing promised, justification, life. Bp. Lightfoot observes that the words, ‘by faith in Jesus Christ’ are not redundant. St Paul’s opponents did not deny that only believers could obtain the promise. They held that it was obtained by works, and not by faith.
This verse reveals the end for which the law was given—not to condemn, but to shew that by it was no escape, from it no escape, except by faith in the promise—in the Person promising and the Person promised. How beautifully Bunyan illustrates this great truth when he makes the Pilgrims who were shut up in the Doubting Castle of Giant Despair effect their escape by the Key of Promise, which Christian found in his bosom! (Cambridge Bible)
Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
3:23 Now before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, [perpetually] imprisoned [in preparation] for the faith that was destined to be revealed,
A. 23-25
PAUL is still thinking of the essential part that the law did play in the plan of God. In the Greek world there was a household servant called the paidagogos. He was not the schoolmaster. He was usually an old and trusted slave who had been long in the family and whose character was high. He was in charge of the child's moral welfare and it was his duty to see that he acquired the qualities essential to true manhood. He had one particular duty; every day he had to take the child to and from school. He had nothing to do with the actual teaching of the child, but it was his duty to take him in safety to the school and deliver him to the teacher. That-said Paul-was like the function of the law. It was there to lead a man to Christ. It could not take him into Christ's presence, but it could take him into a position where he himself might enter. It was the function of the law to bring a man to Christ by showing him that by himself he was utterly unable to keep it. But once a man had come to Christ he no longer needed the law, for now he was dependent not on law but on grace. (Barclay)
B. (23) Before faith came.—Before faith awoke into exercise, began to exist, or the preaching of Christ as its object.
We were kept.—Better, we were kept in ward, so as to bring out more clearly the force of the metaphor which runs through the verse. The Law was a kind of prison-house, in which we were kept shut up. It was a custody from which we were not permitted to escape—a stern guardian that we were made to obey.
Unto the faith . . .—With a view to the dispensation of faith which was in store for us. The object of this state of guardianship was to fit us for the dispensation of faith looming in the future.
C. 3:23-25 The law did not teach a living, saving knowledge; but, by its rites and ceremonies, especially by its sacrifices, it pointed to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. And thus it was, as the word properly signifies, a servant, to lead to Christ, as children are led to school by servants who have the care of them, that they might be more fully taught by Him the true way of justification and salvation, which is only by faith in Christ. And the vastly greater advantage of the gospel state is shown, under which we enjoy a clearer discovery of Divine grace and mercy than the Jews of old. Most men continue shut up as in a dark dungeon, in love with their sins, being blinded and lulled asleep by Satan, through wordly pleasures, interests, and pursuits. But the awakened sinner discovers his dreadful condition. Then he feels that the mercy and grace of God form his only hope. And the terrors of the law are often used by the convincing Spirit, to show the sinner his need of Christ, to bring him to rely on his sufferings and merits, that he may be justified by faith. Then the law, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, becomes his loved rule of duty, and his standard for daily self-examination. In this use of it he learns to depend more simply on the Savior.
(Matthew Henry)
Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
3:24 with the result that the Law has become our tutor and our disciplinarian to guide us to Christ, so that we may be justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with God] by faith.
See Above.
To bring us unto Christ.—The words “to bring us,” it will be seen, are supplied. They may be retained, provided that the metaphor is not pressed to the extent of supposing that Christ represents the schoolmaster proper to whom the child is led by the pedagogue slave. The work of Christ as a Teacher is not what the Apostle has in mind. It is rather a higher kind of guardianship, which is to succeed that of the Law, and to which the Law hands over its pupil. Once brought within the guardianship of Christ, and so made a member of the Messianic kingdom, the Christian is justified by faith, he receives an amnesty for his past sins, and is accounted righteous before God. (Ellicott)
Gal. 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under [the control and authority of] a tutor and disciplinarian.
See above.
A. (25-29) But now the Law has been exchanged for the dispensation of faith. Henceforth the old state of pupilage is at an end. We are no longer like children, but adult members of the divine family—sons of God. We have entered into this relation by faith in Christ. For to be baptized into Christ is to enter into the closest possible relation to Him. It is to be identified with Him entirely. Nor is any excluded. The old barriers of race, status, and even sex, are done away. Through their relation to Christ, all Christians, as it were, unite to form a single man. They are a body animated by a single personality and will. And their relation to Christ stamps them as the true descendants of Abraham. In them is the promise of the Messianic blessing fulfilled. (Ellicott)
B. "But now that faith is come," &c. Moses the lawgiver cannot bring us into the heavenly Canaan though he can bring us to the border of it. At that point he is superseded by Joshua, the type of Jesus, who leads the true Israel into their inheritance. The law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases. (JFB)
Gal. 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
3:26 For you [who are born-again have been reborn from above--spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified and] are all children of God [set apart for His purpose with full rights and privileges] through faith in Christ Jesus.
See Above.
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union with the Christ, the Anointed] have clothed yourselves with Christ [that is, you have taken on His characteristics and values].
A. "As many of you," says Paul, "who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." There are two vivid pictures here. Baptism was a Jewish rite. If a man wished to accept the Jewish faith he had to do three things. He had to be Circumcised, to offer sacrifice and to be baptized. Ceremonial
washing to cleanse from defilement was very common in Jewish practice (cp. Leviticus, chapters 11 to 15). The details of Jewish baptism were as follows: The man to be baptized cut his hair and his nails; he undressed completely; the baptismal bath had to contain 40 seahs, that is 2 hogsheads (a measure of capacity for wine, equal to 63 gallons (238.7 liters)), of water. Every part of the body had to be touched with the water. He made confession of his faith before three men who were called fathers of baptism. While still in the water, parts of the law were read to him, words of encouragement were addressed to him, and benedictions were pronounced upon him. When he emerged he was a member of the Jewish faith; it was through baptism that he entered into that faith. (Barclay)
B. By Christian baptism a man entered into Christ. The early Christians looked on baptism as something which produced a real union with Christ. Of course, in a missionary situation where men were coming direct from heathenism, baptism was for the most part adult baptism and the adult would necessarily Jewish convert was united with the Jewish faith, the Christian convert was united with Christ. Baptism was no mere outward form; it was a real union with Christ. (Barclay)
Romans 6:3-5 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:”
Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
3:28 There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].
A. In the Church there was no difference between any of the members; they had all become sons of God. In verse 28 Paul says that the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female is wiped out. There is something of very great interest here. In the Jewish morning prayer, which Paul must all his pre-Christian life have used, the Jew thanks God that “Thou hast not made me a Gentile, a slave or a woman. Paul takes that prayer and reverses it. The old distinctions were gone; all were one in Christ. (Barclay)
B. After ye have thus put on Christ, the distinctions of your various relations of life apart from Christianity have vanished; from the standpoint of this new condition they have no further validity, any more than if they were not in existence. (Meyer)
Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
3:29 And if you belong to Christ [if you are in Him], then you are Abraham’s descendants, and [spiritual] heirs according to [God’s] promise.
A. We have already seen (verse 16) that Paul interprets the promises made to Abraham as specially finding their fulfilment in Christ; and, if we are one with Christ, we, too, inherit the promises—and this great privilege comes not by a legalistic keeping of the law, but by and act of faith in the free grace of God.
B. Conclusion of the whole argument. The followers of the Messiah are the true seed of Abraham. The kingdom of the Messiah, which they possess, is the promised inheritance. (Ellicott)
