Galatians Chapter 3.

GALATIANS CHAPTER 3.

Paul must give Biblical grounds for the universality of the Gospel and how that it was the divine intention that the family of Abraham, the heirs to the promise, should now include all believers from among all the nations of the earth.  He demonstrates that the fulfillment of the promise on its highest level must include all who share the faith of Abraham.  The gift of the spirit is proof of the true character of the promise and that all believers are sons, heirs and freeborn.  Chapter 3 is also important as illustrating that the gift of the promised Spirit, is linked with faith and in particular the faith in Christ that justifies.

           

3:1.  The chapter opens with Paul's stern reproof for their foolishness.  They had surely taken this step without proper consideration.  Paul is amazed that anyone should have bewitched them, but someone had.  Jesus Christ the crucified had been publicly proclaimed to them.  Paul must refer them to his visit to Galatia when he evangelized them.  The central theme of his preaching had been Christ crucified.  Paul's preaching had been a vivid declaring of the crucified Saviour.  The story of the cross had been vividly told and its central role in God's saving plan.

           

Paul would stir them to sober thinking with vital questions, for the spell under which they had fallen could only be shattered by confronting them with the fundamental Christian reality.  In verse 2 he says:  "How did you receive the Holy Spirit?"  This is a central topic in Paul's argument.  By means of some vital questions Paul recalls to their minds the reality of their beginning in the spirit.  To this one central question, he would demand an answer.  Paul realizes how important this was.  He puts it in the form of a question to make his readers think and that he might bring them back to central issues.  It was by the hearing of faith they had received the Spirit.  The hearing of faith points back to their receiving the gospel.  They had believed the message preached to them.  This gives a lead in defining faith.  For faith is the acceptance of the preached word.  This had been so in their case.  They had believed a report.  This definition of faith is confirmed by verse 6, for there we read that Abraham believed God's spoken word, that is, the promise that God gave.

           

The Christian life begins in the Spirit, that is, the life of the Spirit is not a later development.  Paul openly reproves them for their lack of consideration - that having begun in the Spirit they should think of becoming perfect Christians by means of fleshly rites, such as circumcision and such things.

           

Chapter 3 together with chapter 4 contains the doctrinal section of the epistle in which Paul firmly bases the doctrine of justification by faith on the Old Testament scriptures.  The Jews were a people of the book and they would not be convinced unless a doctrine was vindicated from the scriptures.  The argument of the section turns upon God's dealings with Abraham and the central problem of the two chapters is “Who are the seed of Abraham?”  And in the biblical answer that Paul gives to the problem is the importance and significance of faith.  This very special section has an introduction to itself.  The Galatians are rebuked and warned.  Did not their own experience testify to the central role of faith.

           

3: 1-5.   Introduction.

3: 6-14.  The example of Abraham.

3:16-20.  The superiority of the promise.

3:21-29.  The times of the law and the advent of faith.

           

While chapter three begins the second part of the epistle, we should not attach too much importance to such divisions for they are generally arbitrary.  However Paul was almost certainly conscious of beginning a new part of the epistle.  Paul's method was not a logical demonstration, but it was to proclaim and to affirm after the manner of the Old Testament prophets.  In this section he is concerned, not to show the validity of his apostleship, but the authenticity and validity of the truth of the message that he preached.  This second section was not a simple consequence of the first but it involves a deeper investigation.  He is not content to present the truth of his preaching as a consequence of his apostleship but his chief concern is the authenticity of his message and its scriptural demonstration.

           

The first five verses are best considered as an introduction to the section which is given to the proof of the authenticity of the gospel from the scriptures.  The Galatians would be troubled by the Judaizers, until they themselves came to know the scriptures better.  Paul saw that the painful conflict would continue until he gave conclusive proof of the truth of the gospel from the scriptures.

           

The introduction (v.1-5), was very fitting.  Paul reminds them of their former happiness when he came to them, so binding the Galatians to him that they may be more ready to attend to the things he writes.  The warm feelings and spiritual joy they so recently shared was now menaced. Paul now more directly and plainly addresses the Galatians.  He is only too well aware that if the Galatians doubted the reality of his apostleship, they would also begin questioning the truth of the message he preached.

           

3:1. The word `foolish' (anoetos) does not describe a general deficiency of intelligence but it describes their lack of discernment as to this fundamental point of Christian truth.  Paul is not merely stigmatising their superficiality as deceived and led astray by the Judaizer preachers, but that the Galatians appear to have understood nothing of his gospel.

           

The verb `ebaskanen' shows that their action was not the result of development in the church, whether spiritual or intellectually.  The change did not originate with the Galatians themselves.  An outside influence had brought them under its power.

            In classical and Hellenistic Greek this verb was used to make an allusion to a spell that was the result of magical supernatural and demonical action.  The Galatians had been caught in a spell, fascinated and bewitched by an obscure power of falsehood.  Only this would explain the rapidness of their right about turn, and also it explains why the Galatians had no awareness of the danger they were running into.  What greatly surprised Paul was that they were turning so quickly or so soon from Christ crucified.  This was more than fickleness; it was sheer infidelity and unfaithfulness.

           

The verb `proegraphe', `was portrayed'.  The word means "To announce in advance, depict, describe, placard."   It has been understood in three ways:-

1/   There may be a reference to the Old Testament where the Galatians ought to have found the cross foretold.  In Romans 15:4 the same verb is used of the Old Testament scriptures, so in Gal.3:3 Paul may be bringing an argument from the Old Testament scriptures.

2/   There may be a reference to the preaching by Paul in Galatia, raising or setting up before his hearers a stirring picture of Christ on the cross by which the Galatians had been moved to repentance.  But Bonnard thinks the sense of `prographo', that is, "to depict," is unknown.   In Rom.15:4;  Eph.3:3 and Jude v.4, it refers to what is written.  The only argument that can be stated for the meaning "depict," is the expression `kata ophthalmous', which might suggest the Cross had been depicted before the eyes of the Galatians as an impressive picture.

3/   Most exegetes give the verb the sense of an official proclamation.  Ridderbos takes it as a public announcement, a proclamation, in which the validity of a particular fact or particular condition is proclaimed.  Ridderbos says it does not mean “as a plastic representation of the suffering and death of Christ.”  The phrase, "Before whose eyes," tells of the graphic quality, the visibilty of the content of preaching, but this, presumably points less to the portraiture of Christ's suffering, than to the lucidity and unmistakibility of the preaching.  Guthrie says that Paul would suggest somewhat ironically that they must be under some adverse magic.

           

The words "publically portrayed," is a suggestive figure of speech.  It is used of news normally announced in the ancient world by means of a placard in some prominent place where it would catch the public eye.

           

The word `crucified' (estauromenos), is a perfect participle and means "having been crucified," and suggests that more than the mere historic event is in mind.  Paul is thinking in fact of the abiding significance of the event, hence the perfect tense.  The Cross occupied a large place in the thoughts of the apostle in this Epistle and is undoubtedly central to the doctrine of justification.  His basic assumption here is that those who had looked upon the cross should be free of adverse influences.  It was an anomaly that any who had understood the significance of that event, should ever be bewitched.

           

As Bonnard says, the majority of exegetes give the verb, a sense largely attested, that of an official proclamation placarded before the eyes of all.  Paul had gone to Galatia as an apostle herald and there he had fulfilled his work as an apostolic herald; he had proclaimed salvation as a gratuitous gift, and he proclaimed the Cross as signifying the end of all man's religious ambitions and efforts.

           

Raymond T.Stamm, (Interpreter's Bible).  One of Paul's words for preaching was `prographo', which meant, "post a notice," e.g. on a bulletin board in a public square; "project on a screen," would convey the meaning exactly.  The centre of Paul's preaching was Jesus on the Cross.  As if in a picket line he and his fellow missionaries placarded Jesus Christ crucified that all might see, not God's grievance, but God's love.  Every sermon and letter portrayed the dying and rising of Christ publicly, that is, so clearly and openly that there should have been no mistaking God's way of salvation.

           

3:2.  `Pathein'.  This does not mean here to learn a lesson or a doctrine, but to learn a fact.  Paul's tone is slightly ironical for he had nothing to learn on his part about the subject.  Paul sends them back to their earliest experience of the Christian life and the one that was always actual.  He makes them reflect upon the `Grace of God' that they had received in the past.

           

We observe that the experience of the Holy Spirit Himself, was not sufficient to maintain the Church in the truth and life; it is a again necessary that this experience be recalled and interpreted.  This would be one of the tasks of the prophetic ministry in the New as well as the Old Covenant. The Galatians had received the Spirit.  This was a fact and a subject on which they would certainly be in agreement with Paul.  We see here the importance of Paul introducing the Holy Spirit and their experience of the Spirit, for he is shortly to emphasize the possession of the Holy Spirit as the proof of Sonship.

           

"The Spirit," - `to pneuma', with the definite article.  That is, the Spirit who is in the Church, and in the believer.  His presence makes all things new.  Here it refers to the Spirit of God, in the fullness of His activity, without reference to a particular aspect of His work.

           

When and how did the Galatians receive the Spirit?  Was it by the works of the Law?  That is to say, was it in response to good works?  When Paul came to them they were ignorant of the Law and it was not the Law that Paul had taught them.  This proves that the receiving of the Holy Spirit was not the merit of any moral or spiritual attainment.  The words `ex akoes pisteos' have received three principle interpretations :-

1/   In consequence of your obedience.  (So Lagrange says).

2/   In consequence of your hearing of the faith.

3/   In consequence of the preaching which produced the faith. This is the Classical Protestant interpretation.  Their faith was the reception of the message preached.  The Galatians had received the Spirit, for they received the Spirit when they heard and believed the evangelical message.

           

The phrase "by the hearing of faith," are very important, for this chapter makes it clear that the gift of the Spirit is linked with justification by faith.  The Gift of the Spirit is the Sequence and Seal of justification by faith.  The word `okoe' largely takes the sense to `avouch' the truth of the message rather than merely to hear a public rumour. Paul's procedure is not to discuss or describe two opposing means of receiving the Spirit, but clearly assert that they had received the Spirit before they had accomplished any of the works of the Law.

           

"Let me ask you only this."  Ridderbos rightly says:  "The answer to this one last question is in principle determinative of the issue between them and himself.  Their own witness must convince them of their error."  The possession of the Holy Spirit is the proof and seal we belong to the people of God.   As Guthrie expresses it: "The apostle appeals to the experience of his readers.  How did they become Christians?  They knew very well it was not by fulfilling the Law.  The coming of the Spirit upon them marked their initiation.  They could not deny the Law had nothing to do with it.  This is the first reference in the Epistle to the Holy Spirit.  It is significant that Paul takes it for granted here, what he specifically states in Rom.8:9, that every believer possesses the Spirit of Christ."

           

The Galatians had begun in the Spirit.  For `enarchomai' and `epiteles' see Phil.1:6.  Stamm says:  "To break the enchantment of the Galatians Paul reminded them God's way of bestowing His Spirit and of their deep joy when they first heard the Gospel."  The phrase, "by the hearing of faith," means a believing kind of hearing that welcomes the Gospel and leads the hearer to entrust himself to Christ.  In the hearing of the word which creates the faith, the Spirit is received.

           

3:3.  This verse is not an answer to a question posed by v.2.  He has set in opposition, or antithesis, faith and works.  So now he suggests a further antithesis, the opposition of the Spirit and the Flesh.

           

The verb `enarchomai', (Phil.1:6), points to the beginning of the Christian life.  They began in the Spirit.  This life in the Spirit was not a later development.  But they began the Christian life on the level or plateau of the Spirit.  This beginning of the Spirit went back to Paul's preaching and their reception of his message.  There may also be a comparison to the Greek Mystery rites.

           

Paul characterises all their progress in Judaism as a fall from the Spirit.  They had begun in the Spirit and were now ending in the flesh.  It was a fall from the level of the Spirit into the level of the flesh.  This verse confirms our interpretation of the preceding verse for Paul is not opposed to human possibilities of the religious life.  If they fell to the level of the flesh, then they fell from the Christian life altogether.  There were not two possible levels on which the Christian life could be lived.  The word `pnemati' points to a revealed religion given and inaugurated by God alone.  But `sarki' is a religion in which men take the initiative.

           

3:4.  The exegetical problems of this verse may be insolvable.  The neuter `tosauta', "so many things."  The word "experience," may mean "suffered."   Stamm prefers, "did you experience."  Guthrie admits the word is neutral, but leans to "suffered."

           

Bonnard says, `pascho' may mean "test" or "test between good and bad things."  This second meaning is well attested elsewhere in the Greek.  Bonnard says it may be a matter then of the experience of the Spirit and not of sufferings of persecution.  Neither does Paul appear to refer to the annoyance of the legalists as they sought to afflict the Galatians with their legalism.

           

The first sentence is interrogative.  "Have you received the Spirit in vain?"  But the following words, "If it really is in vain," may point to the confidence of Paul.  He still actually had hope that they had not received the Spirit in vain.

           

3:5.  Paul continues to worry his readers with pressing and exacting questions.  Two verbs are used which describe the action of God (or Christ) in the Churches of Galatia.  Both are in the present tense.  They are: `epichoregon' and `energon', and are both Present Particles.  Paul does not yet consider the Galatian Churches to have definitely fallen.  The Spirit still quickens them as the Present tense implies, and this applies to all.  Paul nowhere teaches that the Spirit is given to the Churches according to the measure of their fidelity.

           

The verb which is here used to describe the Gift of the Spirit presents this giving as an event of considerable importance and as the Sovereign Dispensation of God to the whole Church.  It is necessary then, to understand the `umin' and the following `en umin' (both of v.5) in the sense of Churches and not of quickened individuals. The Churches of Galatia ought to have recognized that they were beneficiaries of the efficacious miracles and signs of the Spirit.  Paul makes no distinction between the gift of the Spirit and the miraculous power.  It was the same God who in the same dispensation granted the Spirit and wrought the miracles.

           

Paul uses the verb `energeo' three times in the Epistle to the Galatians and in contexts which insist on the sovereign action of God, (2:8; 3:5; 5:6).  That he might bring the Galatians back to their former fidelity to the Gospel.  He does not recall their victories and blessings, but that the power of God was working among them.  This was a significant point.  Paul exhorts them by the means of questions that the Galatians may discern the work of God among them, and would draw their own conclusions as to the sufficiency of faith, and the uselessness of the works of the Law.

           

The miracles here may not only be exorcism and healings, but the action of the Spirit in all His manifestations, (see Rom.1:16; 15:13,19; 1.Cor.2:4,5; 4:19,20 etc).  Paul gives a wider sense to the term `miracles' than the Synoptics.  It designates the manifestations of the power of God in the Churches.  Paul's reference to miracles is not an Apologetic to convince sceptical readers, but as an apostle or prophet, brings the Church itself to recognize again the pure Grace of God.

           

Ridderbos takes "He who supplies," as God.  Guthrie also describes this as an indirect description of God, calling attention to the origin of the Gifts of the Spirit.  If the readers were turning away from the Spirit, they were turning away from God.  Stamm points out that `epichoregon' does not mean "he who ministers," but "he who supplies."  It is God who supplies the Spirit that works miracles.  It is not the Christian who supplies the Spirit and works miracles.  In Phil.1:19, the noun form of the verb indicates a supply of the Spirit so rich that no exigency of life and death can exhaust it.  Stamm thinks, "among you" is inadequate.  Paul speaks of a power resident in the heart. That is where the first and greatest miracle takes place; Whereupon the changed and empowered life expresses itself outwardly in right conduct and miracles "among" those who observe them.

           

Conversions from other religions were motivated in part by the search for power to control the mysterious forces of death and life.  Many Christians valued the ability to work miracles more than any other gift of the Spirit, and especially, the emphasis placed upon exorcising the demons that were believed to exist and to cause physical and mental disease.  Paul's task was to keep the Christians from debasing their conception of the Spirit into magic.  He told them that power minus love equals zero and admonishes them to seek the greater gifts of new purpose, new goals, and new ways of living constructively as members of the body of Christ.

           

Christ himself is the greatest possible miracle.  His Resurrection is history's supreme miracle. But a miracle is as difficult to define as personality, which includes visible and invisible elements.

           

The Law and the Faith.                                                 3:6-29.

A/   The example of Abraham.  But Stamm outlines:

B/   The precedent of Abraham's faith.                           3:6-18.

            T

The preview of the Gospel.                                           3:6-9.

Paul, having stated that the Spirit is being supplied to the Christian continuously, now comes to the second Section part of the Epistle.  Here it properly commences, and he demonstrates from the scriptures the truth of Paul's message or preaching.  This includes two principle sections, dominated respectively by the opposition of the Law and Faith, (3:6-29), then that between the Law and Grace, (4:1-31).  Each of these two sections comprise three brief demonstrations, of which one at least is clearly Scripture; these short pericopes have little logical bond between them.  Paul proceeds by successive steps, deepening or making precise each point of his affirmations.  He proceeds at the impulse of his inspiration and it is necessary to say that he is in a state of disquietude and indignation - it could not be favourable to harmonious sentence construction.

           

It is remarkable that after having invoked all the recent experiences of the Galatians, he now confronts them with the Scriptures.  This suggests that, for the Galatians, the Spirit and the Scriptures mutually confirm one another.  Paul was neither a spiritualist nor a Biblicist, but the two confirm their experiences.

           

3:6.  `Kathos', "even as."  That is, "even as it is written."  This introduces a comparison between Abraham and the believers of the "New Covenant."  But we see that it is not a question of a simple comparison, nor a simple moral reference. 

           

Paul does not introduce Abraham as a preacher might introduce some example of the religious or moral life; Abraham characterizes the true people of God, and this the Churches of Galatia were the indirect or collateral heirs; the historical example of Abraham would serve to reveal to the Galatians the actual will of God for them.  It was not a question of imitating Abraham, but of being instructed by him concerning God's abiding purpose for His people.  Paul cites Gen.15:6, correctly, but does he give these words the sense of their Old Testament context?  The meaning of faith in the Old Testament has often been contested.  In the case of Abraham, faith would be a simple confidence, and not the Pauline acceptation of gratuitous justification.

           

According to the Old Testament idea, this confidence was simple reliance and confidence in God.  But for Paul it meant the very foundation for our justification.  However, the terms or terminology of Genesis provided for Paul both precision and emphasis for the new doctrine that he preached.  Nevertheless, as to the basic conception, the idea is much the same.  The faith of Abraham was submission to, and the acceptance of, a promise first given by God.

           

As to the matter of the gratuitousness of righteousness imputed as we find in Rom.4:4, we would understand that Paul did receive such a gratuitous imputation and that it was according to Grace, not according to debt, nor as a thing due to man.  The righteousness of Abraham then was founded upon two Divine initiatives of God's own gratuitousness.

           

His promise and His own good pleasure.   Besides it was not to Abraham alone that the Promise and Righteousness were made, but in him (Abraham) to all the people of God.  Verse 6, makes clear the meaning of the phrase, "the hearing of faith."  God spoke a promise to Abraham, and he believed God. Faith is then, the acceptance of a message or the spoken word.  It was not Abraham's obedience, but his faith, that was counted for righteousness. But his faith issued forth in obedience.

           

Raymond T. Stamm points out that the career of Abraham was marked by four great adventures of faith.  They should make a good topic for an address, they are:-

1/   His departure from Haran to Canaan.

2/   His acceptance of God's covenant of circumcision.

3/   His trust in God to multiply his posterity and to give them the land of the Canaanites.

4/   His willingness to give Isaac on the altar.

The Jews maintained that Abraham's faith was a good work by which he earned justification.  But Paul, resting his case on Gen.15:6, resists this.  Abraham's faith was the basis of his obedience.  The Galatians must have soon learned the significance of Abraham for the History of Salvation.  The Judaizers may have already appealed to Abraham to support their theories.  But what connection did Abraham's faith have to do with Christian faith?  Obviously Paul makes a tremendous assumption here, i.e. that all true faith in God is a unity.   Moreover, he further assumes that his readers will at once assent to this.

           

The age and barrenness of Sarah was against the fulfilment of the Promise.  All that Abraham could do was to believe in an attitude of utter dependence upon God and it is this element which is common to all true faith.  The principle underlying Abraham's faith was no different from the basic principle of Christian faith, although the latter as necessarily more comprehensive because of the revelation of Christ. (Guthrie).

           

3:6. "Reckoned to Him."  The verb involves the idea of calculation.  It was a metaphor drawn from the realm of accountancy. - Guthrie.  As Ridderbos points out, the righteousness here designated, is not ethical propiety, but a Divinely conferred quality, by reason of which he is free of guilt and punishment.

           

3:7. "So you see."  The verb is `ginoskete', and implies mental perception in this verse.  Bonnard thinks it is probably an imperative, but Guthrie thinks this is less likely.  The verb is used by Paul to describe the knowledge of faith rather than the knowledge of the senses or logic.  Paul does not attempt to prove or to demonstrate, but he summons them to discern and receive the Biblical affirmation.

           

The words, "they that are of faith," are all believers as in Rom.4:16, as opposed "to those of works," (Gal.3:10), and also "to those of the circumcision," (Gal.2:12; Rom.4:12).  They are those, or such who believe in Christ.  It is restricted to those who have received the Salvation accomplished by God.  Such only are designated believers by Paul.

           

The pronoun `these' (outoi) is restrictive.  Believers only are "Sons of Abraham," and that not because of some psychological parentage, nor because of having a similar psychological experience.  Believers are designated, "Sons of Abraham," because faith is the only condition of belonging to the people of God.  This is the sole condition.  It is not then a matter of imitating Abraham, nor of imitating his faith, but that of believing in Jesus Christ, who has today given the possibility of faith to all nations.  Faith in Christ is the condition of forming part of the people of God, and that is why Paul must show the significance of Jesus Christ in the entire Plan of Salvation.  He must show the essential place of the Cross in God's purpose.

           

Jesus Christ who is the fulfilment of the promise given in Genesis 15, has made faith possible to every nation.  So in this chapter Paul provides an answer to the burning question, "who are the children of Abraham?"

           

The Jews argued that they alone were the `Sons of Abraham'.  They agreed that the Gentile might become a child of Abraham, so long as he was instructed in, and observed the Jewish heritage, was circumcised and baptized.  But in Abraham Paul sees the beginning of a new conception of the children of Abraham as consisting entirely on the principle of faith.  Natural descent, the acceptance of the Law, had nothing to do with it, for it depended upon the faith in Christ.

           

Guthrie points out that the Greek means, "those who proceed from faith as their source," i.e. those in whom faith is basic.  Stamm too thinks the indicative is best, "so you see."  Paul is stating a case rather than making an exhortation, as the A.V. implies.  Because Abraham was a man of faith, so only men of faith could be his sons.  Paul warns Judaizers against mistaking physical descent from Abraham as a passport to Paradise.  Circumcision and physical descent were irrelevant.  The men of faith were those who, like Abraham, believed God's promises, entrusted themselves to His love and mercy, lived as His sons and friends, so were in right relationship to Him.  In this sense Abraham was the "faith-father" of Christians.  God's "faith-people," the only true "Sons of Abraham."  - Stamm.

           

3:8. Paul gives the testimony of historical events, which have definite meaning for all the life of the Galatians: "And the Scripture foreseeing."  The Greek word is found only here in Galatians.  His formula does not insist upon the personification of the Jewish Scriptures.  Ridderbos thinks the Scripture is personified at this point, but agrees that God Himself is being designated, for His word to Abraham is cited.

           

Bonnard writes that Paul is not using the apologetic in the sense of a formula.  Bonnard says that the personality of the Scripture is sustained in that God is its author.  The verse underlines the initiative and sovereignty of God in His work of justifying. 

Paul does not say that the pagans shall justify themselves by their faith, nor that they shall be justified by faith, but teaches that God justifies (present tense) men by faith.  It is God that justifies.  Faith is not man's contribution to his justification, but it is the means or method that God has chosen to gratuitously justify the pagans.  The promise made to Abraham had for its final end the Salvation of all nations.  The doctrine of justification by faith is put in the service of Biblical universalism.  It was because God intended to call men to Salvation that He limited His demands to faith alone.  It is the condition of Salvation, foreseen in the Old Covenant and accomplished in Jesus Christ.

           

The verb `pro eueggelisato', "to announce in advance."  The `pro' has a temporal force.  It is God who is the true subject.  This verb is one of that familiar group of words used by Paul to emphasize the sovereignty and fidelity of God in the work of Salvation.  For example, `pro ginosko', `pro grapho', and, `pro etoimazo.  The Scriptures are the first witness to this fidelity.  The verse closes with the free quotation  from the LXX.

           

Paul has combined Gen.12:3; 8:18, forming his quotation for his  own purpose.  That Paul made changes in the letter of Scripture shows his use of liberty in making the Old Testament serve in his preaching of the Gospel.  There is nothing here of Rabbinic literalism.  Paul by making these modifications in his quotations thereby endorses the extension of Salvation which God inaugurated in Abraham, and shows the correspondence between the benediction given to Abraham and the justification now given to the nations.  The benediction given to Abraham was very material and personal.  In Abraham was inaugurated the true people of God, a people whose Divine call was not due to carnal descent, neither because imitators of his faith, but the true people of God are composed of believers.

           

Sonship and Justification go together.  It is such that are accounted righteous who are sons.

           

Paul sees in the promise made to Abraham, an anticipation of the Gospel which was their true fulfilment.  The promise was one of blessing for all nations, therefore it must be on some other principle than of natural descent.  There was a note of universalism in the promise.  Paul does not precisely declare the nature of this blessing, but his argument links up justification by faith with sonship and the possession of the Spirit.  That he should become the father of many nations was a promise that could not be fulfilled on the principle of natural descent.

           

Stamm writes; When the ancient Hebrews wanted to wish one another the highest possible blessing, or well-being, they would say, "May you be like Abraham."    Thus Abraham and his descendants were to bless and be a blessing; and all mankind would acknowledge themselves beneficiaries of the overflow of his posterity and happiness.

           

3:9.  Compare with Rom.4:17.  In blessing Abraham the believing man, God in effect gave the same benediction to believers at all times.  The present tense, `eulogountai' marks the present reality of the event of this benediction which was formerly given to Abraham.  All believers now share in the same blessing.  The solidarity between Abraham and the Galatians was one of identical religious attitude such as that of believing, but based on the one and same decision of God.  Signified to, and in Abraham, and now applied to pagan Christians.  Believers alone (opposed to those who relied on works) are with Abraham under the benediction of God.

           

The RSV., changes, "faithful Abraham," to "Abraham who had faith."  It literally means, "full of faith."  Its primary meaning today is "fidelity, reliability."  This does not bring out Paul's main point.  The word, `pistis' has a dual meaning.  Paul's main point is Abraham's response in believing God.  The RSV., however does not bring out the element of faithfulness which is inseparable from Paul's "faith."  A paraphrase may bring out the meaning:  "Abraham who had faith and was faithful". Stamm.

           

3:10.  The idea introduced in v.10-12, is that the Law is not only useless and powerless, but it is opposed to man's acceptance or justification.  The Law exerts an evil and destructive power which is opposed to the saving work of God.  The words, "as many are as of the works of the Law," describes those who put their hope in works of the Law that they might be justified.  "As such without exception," `osoi', this comprises even those who pretend to believe in Jesus Christ, such are under (present tense) the curse.  It is not a question of a threat of an eschatological curse, but of an actual and present reality, and of which the victims do not have any awareness.

           

It is remarkable that Paul, in supporting his doctrine of the curse, makes also his appeal to the Old Testament.  He quotes a general Biblical declaration on the curse, Deut.27:26.LXX.    The question arises, where does the emphasis fall?  The adjective, “all” seems to carry the emphasis.  Probably in the Old Testament context the emphasis fell upon not observing the `all' things written in the Law, but it is likely that for Paul the emphasis fell upon, "all under Law."

           

Guthrie makes the first `all' to mean any, who rely on legal efforts, whether Jew or Gentile.  If a man is going to base his Salvation upon his obedience to the Law, there can be no exception, even for the least of its commandments.  He must keep them all.  Paul does not say the curse is God's curse.  It is the curse of the Law. It is sometimes argued that Deut.27:26, does not aim to bring all people under a curse, but to summon men to a meticulous and careful obedience to the Law.  This is true, but the Judaizers made the Law a way of Salvation.

           

3:11. Paul's task was to convince the Galatians of the impossibility of being justified by the Law.  He expounds the impotence of the Law for justification.  They had no doubt as to Christ, but were tempted to put both their hope in Christ and in the Law.  They did not see the all-sufficiency of Christ, but it was Christ and something else, the Law.  But to be justified by means of, or, in virtue of the works of the Law, this is justification by Law.

           

Paul makes no allusion to those who lived in the period of the Law, nor to those who were under the Law.  This justification is understood by Paul in the sense of justification before God, and by God.  For God alone judges the man, and to be just before Him, is to receive the approbation of His judgment.  It must be understood as justified by Him.  He alone is the arbitrator of human life.  For Paul, it is evident, as it is in 1.Cor.15:27; It is a question of light on a theme of Scripture, or a subject attested by Scripture.  Paul does not depend upon logical arguments derived from logical insights, but he held to the truth of Jesus Christ, considered in His death and resurrection, as revealed in the Scriptures.  The Scriptures make known nothing new or novel to Paul, for the Scriptures are clearly in the service of the Gospel given in Jesus Christ.

           

Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 and modifies the sense of the verse.  See Rom.1:17; Heb.10:38.  The LXX affirms that "the Just shall live by the fidelity of God". It had already changed the sense of the original Hebrew ("the just shall live by his fidelity").  Paul suppresses the possessive `mou' (my fidelity), he understood fidelity in the sense of confident submission to the word of God pronounced in Jesus Christ.

           

The justified does not live except by faith in the gracious deliverance accomplished in Jesus Christ.  This life, as we have already seen is not an exceptional supplement to religious fervour, but is the concrete and daily life of the believer before God.

           

Faith is the principle that makes the blessing available to all.  Abraham entered the blessing on this principle and he did so as a representative man, the head or beginning of a new family, the father of many nations.  But in verse 10 Paul no longer writes of blessing, but now, he speaks of cursing.  To be under the law was to be under a curse, and Paul confirms this from scripture.  No one had so fulfilled the law, so as to escape its curse.

           

3:11.  It is therefore on quite a different principle to law that men are justified and this too became obvious from the Old Testament.  Scripture says:  "he who is righteous by faith shall live."  But the law is not compatible with faith, but they represent two altogether different and diverse principles, for the scripture writes concerning the law, "that the man who shall do these things shall live."  Therefore the gospel of righteousness, is believing, it is a matter of faith and this means that on God's part it is his gift.  The initiative is with God and not with man.

           

Guthrie points out that the words, "justified before God," `para to theo', the addition of the words "before God" focuses attention on justification as seen in the eyes of God and is contrasted to any human interpretation of justification.  In the words "by the law," Paul is not denying the function of the law, but only a legalistic interpretation of it.  The words of Habakkuk had a deeper meaning for Paul than for Habakkuk, but the germinal ideas were there (Guthrie).  The quotation from Habakkuk is one of the few Old Testament examples in which faith is presented as the one thing necessary for redemption.

           

Stamm writes: the interpreter has to guard against basing "justification by faith" upon a fictitious or imputed righteousness rather than presenting it as an actuality inseparable from the Christian's present life in Christ.  When Paul says that the righteous man who is both just and justified, is to live on the basis of faith, he is describing a way of life that is present as well as future.  His faith is the determinant of action which makes righteousness actual even now.

           

3:12.  Here Paul turns to the law itself (Lev.18:5) against the legalists.  His argument is that since no man can obey the commandments well enough to qualify for eternal life, salvation is impossible by law.  The law is not of faith, but belongs to the market, where men drive bargains, and to courts where they bring suit against one another. (Stamm).  The law coupled the command with the promise.  It was a good law and a good promise, but of no avail against the evil impulse which no man unaided could conquer (Stamm).  A man is not called upon to believe the law but to do it. (Guthrie).  The apostle is not, of course, asserting that no legalist can possess faith, but that law does not depend on faith for its basis.

           

3:13.  Verses 13 to 14 bring to a conclusion the first development in the second part of the epistle (3:6-14).  The purpose of God must extend to all the families of the earth (3:8).  Now the law had provisionally limited the history of salvation to the Jewish people.  The Jews were bound and limited to this law by their religious ambition and outlook.  The Jews were dominated by it.  The ancient people of God were stifled in their own particular legalism.  In order that the people of God may again find his universal calling it was first necessary that the Jew should be delivered from the curse of the Law and made capable of receiving the nations into their bosom without them submitting to legal observances.  It is this deliverance from the curse of the law that redemption here describes.  It is Jesus Christ who has accomplished this deliverance.

           

Paul refers firstly to the objective and historical work of Christ and not to the spiritual experience of his readers, but neither does he refer to an impersonal, historical process.  The `us' must not be confined to Jewish Christians, for Paul was writing to the Galatians and many of them were Gentiles.  Redemption or the idea of redemption in the Epistle to the Galatians is in the service of that of liberation, (5:1) and is more general and fundamental.  Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the tyranny of the law, but this law is not understood or comprehended under an angelic of mythical figure, but it expresses the curse of God upon man who seeks in it his salvation, Rom.2:5-10.  It is then from divine wrath that Jesus Christ has delivered us.  In the Pauline understanding of the gospel the work of Christ is the work of God in Christ.  His work was substitutionary - it was for us.  `Uper emon', that is, it was on our behalf, in our favour and in our place.

           

The phrase `genomenos katara' signifies that Jesus Christ himself has incurred the curse of God.  Christ was placed by God, becoming in the human and historical situation that was characterised by legal dominion.  `Upo nomon' 4:4.  He has lived in this situation as a situation wholly full of despair and without hope, a kind of blind alley or blocked way in the history of salvation.  And to support this interpretation of the cross he freely quotes Deut.21:23.

           

But the situation that was created by the law has been solved.  Christ has redeemed us from its curse.  This he has done voluntarily becoming a curse for us.  The curse of the law must be equivalent to the condemnation of the law.  That it is a curse denotes the dishonourable nature of the condemnation.   Christ took our place and was made a curse for us.  Paul quotes scripture as proof that the death of Christ had the nature of a curse, but it is almost certain that the mere fact of hanging on a tree does not exhaust the meaning of the curse.  The cross did not overtake Jesus; He overtook the cross.  (Blackwelder).

           

The verb, `exegorasen' means, "brought out from,"  "delivered" at the expense of one's self.  The price of mans freedom was high.  Paul does not imply that Christ turned himself into a curse or that God treated him as a reprobate.   It was the Law's curse not God's.  Paul omits `upo Theou', "by God" from his quotation of Deut.21:23 LXX.  To set me free Christ had to associate himself with all who had incurred the Law's curse by disobedience.

           

In Paul's world a curse was believed to be a poisonous atmosphere around its victims.  Among the most horrible curses was that which rested upon a criminal whose body after execution by some other mode of capital punishment was hung on a tree for special retribution.  (The Jews did not execute by hanging).  The body was not allowed to remain overnight upon the tree lest it defile the land which God had given to Israel.  According to the law, the death of Jesus upon the cross delivered him into the sphere and power of God's special curse. (Stamm).  Guthrie too insists that the curse is defined in relation to the law.  Paul does not state that Christ had become the curse of God.  "For it is written."  This is the same formula as in verse 10.  Paul is determined to prove his point from scripture.  Paul knows that he shares this common ground with the Judaizers that any truth supported by scripture is, in his view, fully authenticated.

           

Christ did not redeem us from something only imaginary or something valid only from a legalistic point of view.  The curse resting on the crucified Christ was the same curse resting on all men. (Guthrie).

           

3:14.  Christ removed the curse that blessing may become universal.  The law stood in the way of the fulfilment of that blessing, but the cross made the fulfilment of that blessing possible to all nations.  We note the twofold purpose of Christ's death:-

1/   That the blessing of Abraham may become universal and;

2/   That all, Jew and Gentile alike, might receive the Spirit.  Christ removed the curse that blessing may become universal.

           

Bonnard notes that the two clauses mark the purpose of God as it is pursued in the process or history of salvation.  In the history of salvation the entrance of the law was merely an episode provisionally limiting the effects of the blessing given to Abraham, but from the injurious restraint of the law Christ has redeemed us.  The `ina' on each occasion is dependent on `exegorasen'.

           

The Gentiles or nations are all the people of the earth.  The blessing of Abraham, that which was given to him was a pre-vision, or anticipation of the salvation of the nations.  The blessing or benediction in the Old Testament has always a very concrete character, for it changed the family, as well as the political and economic life of those who are its object.  In Abraham the blessing expressed the gift of posterity and the promise of the promised land.  I would describe the blessing of Abraham as especially that of sonship, for he was to become a father of many nations.  It is justification and sonship.

           

But the blessing or benediction has always continued to be the free act and free gift of God.  It has then kept a mysterious character, at times surprising and disconcerting to those upon whom it rested, and so it was when it came in Jesus Christ.  For Jesus Christ is all to faith as he is the agent as well as the place of the blessing given to Abraham and now fully accomplished.  It is sufficient then to believe; for the mention of faith is restrictive, for faith cannot produce nor merit nor even obtain the Spirit, but can only receive Christ.  When a man receives Christ he receives all, and to receive the promise of the Spirit signifies that the one has received the fulfilment of the promise of the Spirit.

           

The faith of Abraham was essentially fidelity to a promise concerning him to come, but faith for believers under the new covenant is submission to a promise already fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Meanwhile, it is faith and not sight, because the accomplishment of the promise shall not be manifested until the last day; the gift of the Spirit and the conversion of the nations are merely signs, forerunners of this final manifestation.

           

Guthrie writes on the words, "that in Christ Jesus."  Blessings come only to those "in Christ."  The phrase seems to refer to all Christians as forming a corporate fellowship in Christ.  The idea of common union in Him is integral to Paul's theology. "That we might receive."  A purpose clause, and taken as co-ordinate with the first clause. 

           

The extension of the blessing to the Gentiles and the gift of the Spirit are different aspects of the same operation, rather than being distinct from each other.  By using the first person plural here, Paul not only includes himself, but comprehensively includes all Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike.  A Divine promise is something given as a gracious act of God. Receiving a promise is an act of faith, not of merit.

           

Ridderbos writes:  "The promise of the Spirit," is `ten epanggeliav'  for the promised Spirit.  The gift of the Spirit is now designated as the content of the promise to Abraham.

3:15-22.  The Law and the Promise.        (Ridderbos).

3:15-29.  Promise and Law.                    (Guthrie)

3:1-18.  The Presumptuous Codical.       (Stamm).

3:19-25.  The Interim Function of Law.     (Stamm).

3:15-20.  The Superiority of the Promises over Law.

3:15.  Paul has already expressed his thoughts on the subject of the Promise and its superiority over the Law and of the fulfilment of the promise in Jesus Christ, and he has expressed how faith is the unique means of participating in the promise.  But according to his habit Paul takes up again what he has discussed and deals with it in various aspects.

           

In verses 15-20, he describes the promise in its historical relationships with other elements of the history of Salvation; then he writes of the Law, its termination in Jesus Christ and the faith in Him.  So that they should have no difficulty in understanding, Paul speaks after the manner of men.  He chooses a figure from current human relations to illustrate God's historical relations with men.  The illustration means that even when it is a question of a mere human testament, no other person can make a change.  God's promise cannot be added to by others, nor restricted in any way by others.  It cannot receive any modification from outside influences.  Paul insists upon the regularity of the primary or first disposition of God that was given to Abraham. 

           

The substantive `diatheke' has certainly in this instance the primary sense of testament, (3:17; 4:24).  It means testament rather than covenant.  Paul does not describe a bilateral arrangement between two equal parties, but a unilateral, judicial and sovereign disposition that was immediately valuable from the standpoint of power becoming a practical reality on reaching the full age of the heir.  This temporal character of the idea of testament most fitting, describes this aspect of the history of salvation as conceived by Paul.

           

Guthrie has difficulty in deciding between the meaning `covenant' and `will', but thinks Paul may be using the word in a sense somewhat between the idea of a `will', which is too restricted because no mention is made of the death of the testator, and the idea of a covenant.

           

Ridderbos thinks `diatheke' originally meant an arrangement, a settlement legally drawn up and legally in force.  Later it came to mean a last disposition of the will, a testament.  The word `kekuromenen' is derived from legal terminology.  It designates a legal sanction.  Paul does not mean that no human will is ever tampered with, but that such treatment is the exception, and that those responsible are considered criminals. (Stamm).

           

Paul equates God's `diatheke' with God's promise, and likens it to a human will which disposes with a man's property after his death.  He regards the Law of Moses as a `codicil' attached by the angels of God.  The word means both testament and covenant, both `will' and `agreement'.  The context shows  that Paul keeps both ideas in mind, shifting from one to another as his argument demands.

           

3:16.  The promise was given to Abraham and to his seed and to others.  A burning question in this chapter is; who are Abraham's seed?  But the singular form of this word provides Paul with a useful category to work with.  For the word `seed' can be applied to an individual or to a collective group.  Paul's first application of the word is to an individual.  In this way he is able to show how God works out His purpose through Christ.  This verse brings to a conclusion the principle announced in verse 15, and already applied to Abraham in verse 16.  (v.16 breaks the sequence of reasoning).

           

`Touto de', "and this," is related to that which follows while `de' = "or,"  "and."  It is not adversative.  The word `diakethe' means `testament' as in verse 15, in which Paul recovers the juridical metaphor;  the fact the illustration is inadequate in as much as God does not die as a human testator, does not spoil the comparison.  This verse applies the principle announced in verse 15 to the historical case of Abraham.  The promises were made to Abraham.  The promises cannot be modified or abolished.

           

The plural form of the word `promises' can be explained by the several accounts given of the promise to Abraham as is clear from Gen.12:2,7,13,15;  15:4;  17:2;  22:16;  24:7., and also, that this promise has several parts.  It contains several particulars besides being diversely formulated according to the text.  This can be summarized in the threefold promise of a seed, of the promised land, and a covenant of Yahweh's constant assistance.  "Yahweh shall be thy God and to thy posterity." (Gen.17:7).  It is evidently in this last promise that the other two are comprehended or culminated.

           

After the manner of the Rabbis, Paul being aware of a particular grammatical detail of the LXX text, dwells on the singular "thy seed," which he finds announced in Christ, and who would himself accomplish the promise made to Abraham.  But elsewhere (Rom.9:7), Paul takes the same singular form in a  collective sense as including all the posterity of Abraham.  Both the Hebrew and the Greek word, `sperma' has these two senses, the collective, which is much more frequent, and the individual sense.

           

The intention of Paul, in this context, is to affirm that the promise made to Abraham was also (at some time) made to Jesus Christ.  Christ is then at the same time, He who accomplished the promise and who is the final beneficiary.  As he who accomplished the promise, it is from Him and by Him in history that God became our God. (Gen.17:7).  And as the last (final) beneficiary He gathers in His Person and dispenses to the beneficiaries of promise, that is, to all those who believe in Him.

           

To demonstrate that all believers (pagan-Christian) are now part of the people of God, Paul does not pass directly from Abraham to the pagan Christians, showing that having the same faith they are beneficiaries to the same promise.  It is not faith that has secured salvation.  Paul's argument is much more historical and Christo-centric; he shows that in blessing Abraham, God had the pagan already in view that they should hear and be saved by Jesus Christ.  Stamm writes, `sperma' means seed, and is used in the sense of offspring, RSV, or `descendant',`posterity'.  Gen.22:17-18. LXX.            Paul builds his argument from a merely grammatical feature.  Paul seldom resorts to this kind of proof, and when he does do so, he has already demonstrated it on the solid ground of his own experience with Christ.  Paul conceives of all men of faith as summed up in Christ.

           

3:17.  This verse brings to a conclusion the principle declared in verse 15, and already applied to Abraham in verse 16, (16b, breaks the sequence of thought).

           

`Touto' = `ceci', `de' and `or'-`and'.  `Touto de', "and this."  `Touto', is relative to that which follows, and `de' is not adversative. The word `diatheke' here signifies testament as in verse 15, in which Paul recovers the juridical metaphor; the fact that the comparison is inadequate insomuch as God does not die as a human testator.  But this does not spoil the comparison.

           

The Testament that was instituted by giving of the promise (3:16), shall not know any modification or annulment by the introduction or giving of the Law in the history of salvation.  The prefix `pro' is opposed to the following `meta'.  The idea is temporal.  The giving of the promises was long before the giving of the Law.  The number 430 years ought to be taken to indicate a long period.

           

Paul is insisting upon the antiquity of the promise.  Not that the apostle is concerned with chronological exactness.  The period of time given in tradition serves his purpose.  The Law in question is that given at Sinai.  Paul does not yet declare the place and role of the Law in the history of salvation.  He notes only that it unexpectedly appeared or arrived, and that its appearance could not cause the testament to lapse.  Paul's hope was in the permanent validity of the promise made to Abraham.  That promise Paul was confident that nothing, not even God Himself shall abolish.

           

The unshakeable validity of the promise exercised by the sovereignty of God in the secular history of salvation;  a history that is derived from the initial act of God.  A history that was summed up in the promise.  A long period of time clearly distinguished between the promise and the Law.  The giving of the Law could form no part of God's dealings with Abraham.  For he had long been dead when the Law was given.

           

Stamm writes:  Besides the sole heirship of Christ, Paul had another reason for rejecting the Law as a basis of salvation:  It was 430 years later than the covenant. Stamm thinks it is better to translate `diatheken', consistently as `will', throughout verses 15-17.  The Law could not make the original promise `ineffective', or `inoperative'.  As Guthrie points out, the crucial factor in Paul's argument is the priority of the covenant, but the precise explanation of 430 years is unimportant for Paul.  The language expresses the one-sided nature of God's covenant.  Ridderbos notes that the Law means demand, conditions; the promise on the contrary, means free grant, guarantee, unconditionally.

           

3:18.  This verse declares the theological conclusion announced in verse 17, on the plane of history.  The inheritance, i.e. the salvation promised to Abraham, cannot adhere to two principles at the same time.  It was in accordance to the promise gratuitously made to Abraham, or on the other hand, in virtue of the Law, i.e. by legal works done by the heirs.  It is either an inheritance of grace or a legal heritage.  The "if" which opened the verse is purely theoretical.  But Paul does not seriously entertain the case of inheritance acquired by legal works.

           

`Ouketi' = "no more," "no longer."  This is logical and not temporal.  Paul does not think of a period in which the inheritance at first founded on God's grace  may eventually be raised up to the principle of works of the Law.  Paul opposes two irreducible principles.  The important point is to show on what basis salvation is promised.  Now that which was promised on the principle of pure grace cannot be received in any way, but by grace alone.  The final eschatological salvation that was promised to Abraham, was accomplished in Jesus Christ, and revealed to the nations by means of preaching, as a gift entirely for believers.

           

The mention of the inheritance suggests that we should take `diatheken' in verse 17 as meaning `testament' or `will'.   Law represents quite a different principle to Promise.  Paul's own bitter experience was that grace was irreconcilable to Law.

           

`E kleronomia' lays emphasis on the right to inherit.  `Kechistai O theos', "God has graced, or gifted it." God's legacy to Abraham was both material and spiritual, both for this world and the world to come.  It consisted of Palestine as the land of promise and of faith; of an ever-increasing dominion; of the priviledge and task of being a perpetual blessing to all mankind.  Gen.13:14-17; 15:4-7; 17:1-8;  2.Chron.6:27.  The Christians denationalized it, called it the Kingdom of God, and claimed for Christ and themselves as fellow-heirs with Christ.  The Spirit was the first instalment of this inheritance, and the guarantor of the rest of it.

           

3:19.  The history of Salvation bears testimony to the grace of God, as illustrated by the promise made to Abraham.  But is the Law a false note in this history?  One has only to ask the question to discern the revolution the Gospel made in the thinking of Paul who was once an irreproachable Jew. (Phil.3).

           

`Ti', "why," "to what good is the Law?"  `Oun', "then," or "therefore."  This returns to verse 18.  What is then the significance of the Law?"  This Law is the whole or entire will of God as deposited in the Old Testament, the Decalogue in particular, but equally including the ritual law such as circumcision and like things.  To this question, that is, to the matter of the Law, Paul gives three successive and complimentary answers, (v.19-20;  21-22;  23-29).  At the beginning the Law was superadded. The prefix `pros' indicates neither the direction, nor the end, but merely addition to the promise for the cause of transgression. This last expression has been given the principle senses.  `Charin', "on account of."  May signify:-

1/   To make known to man his disobedience.  As Burton writes: "For the sake of transgression it was added."  `Prosetethe' marks the Law as supplementary, and hence subordinate to the covenant.  Where there is no law, though there may be sin, there is no transgression.  `Parabasis' is not simply following the evil impulse, but is violation of explicit law.  As Stamm notes, the Law actually created transgressions by stirring man's latent sinfulness into open transgressions.  Stamm heads verses 19-25, "The Interim Function of the Law."  The function of the Law was to turn men's sins into transgressions.

2/   To restrain sin until the times of Christ.

           

3/   To make sin abound, that is, to excite it and give it the power of death.  Sin did not have this power without the Law.  But only by means of the Law has sin become truly mortal transgression of the will of God.  It is this sense that Paul makes known in 1.Cor.15:56.  The Law is the power of sin.  See Rom.5:20; 7:7; 8:2.  This divine and terrible power of the Law was limited to a definite or precise period in the history of Salvation.  This was the period that extended from Moses to Jesus Christ.  It was not the Law that brought the eschatological fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham.  Christ has come and by his advent the period or times of the Law were terminated.  The Law has been surpassed by His advent or Event.

           

When the promise, i.e. the grace of God was given completing the whole history of Salvation, then it is clearly seen that the Law was not present at its beginning, nor in its final accomplishment.  The Law was shown to be merely an episode.  On the other hand, the promise was made by God directly to Abraham in contrast to the Law which was promulgated by angels.  This `dia' is instrumental.  God promulgated the Law by the intermediary of angels, or it may be causal, the Law had its origin in the hurtful initiative of celestial subordinates.  Guthrie favours "through," i.e. "in the agency of," which would then we believe distinquished the angels from the ultimate originator of the Law, i.e. God Himself.  One fact is clear: it is that Paul avoids attributing to God the direct giving of the Law.  In this way he depreciates its role.  This is his intention throughout the context.

           

Bonnard favours the causal sense, or loosely causal.  That the giving of the Law at Sinai was accompanied by a strange phenomena, and particularly by the sound of trumpets, was widely attested in the Old Testament.  See Exod.19:9,16;  24:15; Deut.4:1; 5:22.  And the idea of the role of the angels in that scene was found in Jewish apocalyptic writings and among the Rabbis.  In going back to the Jewish doctrines, Paul shows his originality in that he mentions the role of angels not to exalt the Law, but rather to depreciate it.

           

Paul even uses the title mediator in a depreciative sense.  The Law was given through the ministry or service of a mediator, that is, God was not immediately engaged or occupied in its promulgation.  The mediator was Moses.  Even if the LXX had not explicitly given him this name, it had often implied this role to him, but never, it is true, to depreciate the Law.  But in the Hellenistic Judaism, Moses was presented as the mediator.

           

The reference to the mediator marked the inferiority of the Law to the Promise.  The reference to the angels was not to enhance the importance of the Law.  The Jew would insist that the Law must have had some part to play in the history of Salvation.  Why was the Law introduced into the realm of human life at all?  Paul replies: "it was added for the sake of transgressions."  But its addition was provisional, and temporary.  It had a preparatory role until the `Seed' came, and who would accomplish the fulfilment of the Promise.

           

Ridderbos writes of `charin', "by reason of."  In the Greek these words can point to cause as well as purpose.  If the causal meaning is accepted, then it would mean "because the transgressions were many."  The Law was given, that is, to restrain them.  From Rom.4:15 and 5:20, it becomes apparent, however, that Paul means something else:  the Law was given, so to speak, to call forth the transgressions, and make them manifest.

           

3:20.  Among the many interpretations given to this verse, only three deserve notice.  Verse 20 is an episode on the theme of the mediator.  The `de' is not adversative.  The mention of the mediator, Moses, is intended to limit the importance of the mediator in the promulgation of the Law, and to depreciate the Law.  The three views are:-

           

1/   If the mediator is not only one, it would signify that as to its basis, two parties were represented.  The two parties are God and the people of Israel.  The mediator coming between God, who gave the Law, and Israel who received it.  The Law was an agreement between God and Israel and did not depend on God as in the case of the Promise to which the Law is inferior.  In this interpretation the agreement is a compromise.  But the principle weakness of this interpretation is that the idea of a mediator, does not forcibly involve a compromise between two parties.  The Law could not have been given independently of a mediator.

           

2/   That Paul uses the Gnostic idea that a mediator always represents a plurality, so that it is not a question of the Name of God, but the plurality of angels.  God is One and is not to be likened to a plurality of angels.

           

3/   Paul emphasizes the unity of God and the following reasons support it:  God is One, i.e. it is a question of His Sovereignty only.  The Law was given by a mediator, so then the Law does not come from God, that is, His Oneness. Paul uses the Gnostic myth in the service of a preconceived view of the Law.  Ridderbos remarks on the great number of interpretations of verse 20. Ridderbos would choose between two interpretations:-

           

1/   Wherever a mediator is involved, two parties are involved: a mediator does not represent one party.

           

2/   A mediator never represents one person merely but comes in the name of a party of persons, a party consisting of more than one person.  God, however, is one. Hence the law which was implemented by way of a mediator, does not come - at least, not directly - from God, but from the many angels.

           

Ridderbos rejects the latter interpretation.  For one thing, a mediator need not always be delegated by more than one person.  Ridderbos would choose the first explanation. The intention then is to put the emphasis on the one-sided character of the promise.  The law came through mediatorial channels.  Two parties were involved in it.  To achieve its purpose the law is dependent upon human agreement and appropriation.  God is the author of the law, but man is the subject of its fulfilment.  In the giving of the promise, however, no mediator intervened.  God was at work alone: for he is not only the author of the promise; He fulfils it also.  God consulted with no others when he made the promise to Abraham.  Paul emphasizes the sovereignty of God in fulfilling his promise.

           

3:21-29.  The times of the law and the times of faith. 

The Interim Function of Law  3:19-25. 

Paul contrasts the period, times of interim of the law and times of faith.  The period of the law and the coming of faith.   Verses 21-29 deal with the same theme as the previous section or pericope, but with a very important difference of tone and perspective.  Paul makes use of certain Gnostic categories.  In verse 20 Paul opposes the law to the promise and makes use of some terms which in some respects does violence to his real thought.  For promise and law become opposed principles as to essence and origin.  But in verses 21-29 he develops his idea of the inferiority of the law. 

           

Paul here returns to historical and temporal categories, with which they would be familiar, so as to limit the role of the law.  In these verses Paul considers the limited role that the law had played in the history of salvation.   When writing of this role, Paul not only shows its provisional character, but above all, its character of anticipation and preparation to prepare for the advent of Christ.  He is at the centre of history, and it is from the point of view of Jesus Christ that Paul gets a situation from which he could describe the respective roles of the law and that of faith within the entire development of the purpose of God for the salvation of humanity.

           

3:21. `Oun', "therefore," hearkens back to verse 19.b, and to verse 20.  By reflecting on Moses the mediator, we draw the conclusion that the law is against the promise of God.  Paul will not agree to this for a moment.  The word `against' is `kata' with the Genetive.  It marks the opposition of the two principles, legalism and grace.  The two principles are self-exclusive.  It was the usage the Judaizers made of the law that was so opposed to the promises.  While the Judaizers made a usage of the law that was entirely opposed to the promises, but that does not hold for the law itself.  The problem arose because of the fundamental error of the Judaizers as to the meaning and purpose of the law.  The Judaizers did not grasp where they were in the history of salvation.

           

If a law had been given with power, that is, to give life (to make alive, to give the true life), the life that only God can give, and that which he approves.  If this was so, the law and the promises might have entered into competition, that is, if righteousness had been possible by the law.  But it was not given to the law to have the power of life.  The law had quite a different  role to play in the purpose of God.  The role of the law was inferior and subordinate to that of the promise.  The law fulfilled an inferior role in the history of salvation.  In this verse life and righteousness are almost synonymous.

           

The word `Law' is the definite article in the Greek.  The righteousness which is acceptable to God, does not grow out of, and is not based on obedience to law.  "Promise" is based on faith in Christ Jesus.  The Law was not contrary to faith, but incommensurable with it:  the two belong to separate spheres, the one of death, the other of life. (Stamm).

           

3:23.  The Law's historical role.  Paul thinks that of Law and that of Faith, as two successive steps or stages in the history of Salvation.  But Paul now writes in a more positive way concerning the Law than he does in verses 15-20.  He writes of the place of Law in the history of Salvation.  He declares that the Law has accomplished its purpose, and that the Law had nothing to do with the actual justification of men.

           

Paul writes of faith's advent or coming.  Its appearance, just as He has written of the coming of Jesus Christ as the offspring of the promise made to Abraham, (3:19).  The coming of the offspring was the one and same event as that of faith.  The coming of Jesus Christ, the `seed', has inaugurated the times of faith and made faith a possibility.  This faith is not to be identified with the evangelical doctrine of Christianity, but is the act with which a man responds to the promise of God accomplished in Jesus Christ.  This act of confidence and trustful submission, characterizes the new times, as the legal enslavement characterized the times of the Old Covenant.  We were then garrisoned under law, as if guarded by the law for our good.

           

We find the same verb used in 2.Cor.11:32, in proper sense of guarding a town.  The `we' ought not to be strictly limited to the Jewish people.  Paul would say that humanity in its entirety was under the inexorable dominion of the Law and were unable to liberate themselves.  During all this time, the faith was about to come to be revealed.  It was not that the Law had in any way initiated mankind into the new spirituality of faith, but God had defined the times of the Law.  The revelation concerning faith was accomplished in Jesus Christ, and became effective to all by the apostolic preaching.

           

Stamm writes, verse 23 continues its description of the human situation before Christ.  Faith is "the faith" which came with Christ.  Stamm thinks "to bring us to Christ," is purposive, rather than temporal, "until Christ came." RSV.  Some verb, such as "lead," or "bring," has to be supplied.  Ridderbos says that the Law is now represented as a jail-keeper.  Guthrie notes the definite article "before faith."

           

Paul is not thinking of faith in general, which had, after all, been seen in Abraham's experience, but in the particular kind of faith to which reference has been made in verse 22, i.e. faith centred in Christ.  The word `eis' "to" or "until," could be rendered "with a view to," suggesting purpose (S.Williams).  The temporal idea seems preferable, since the argument is concerned with historical sequences.  The coming of the Christian faith ended the custodian function of the Jewish Law.

           

3:24.  `Oste' = "so," "thus," indicates how Paul after much groping came to express his thoughts on the historic role of faith. 

           

The ancient pedagogue was most often a slave, who took care of the child until he reached his majority.  It was not his task to teach the child or to educate him, but only to watch and to observe that he submitted to the daily programme of lessons, games and diverse obligations; the pedagogue was above all, a guardian, in the sense we have given to this word in the previous verse.  The characteristics of a pedagogue are:-

1/   There was a limited time or period to his task.  He continued to fulfil his task only until the child reached his majority, that is, until he was considered old enough to be capable of living and controlling his own life.

           

2/   His work was limited as to its range.  It was not his task to actually educate or to properly prepare the child for adulthood.  His disciplinary activity were of a very limited range.

           

3/  His work was directed towards a state,  the attainment of adulthood, then his supervision would cease. In other words his task was to a state to which he had nothing significant to contribute.

           

These three characteristics can well be applied to the historic role that the present context attributes to the Law of Moses.  It is necessary then to give a temporal sense to the preposition `eis' (until, as far as).  See also verse 23, "until the moment of the coming of Jesus Christ," and not just, "to Christ," in the sense that the Law had morally and psychologically prepared the human race to believe in Christ. Omit then, the words, "to bring us," and supply "the event," or "coming of," Jesus Christ.

           

The Purpose of God (`ina' as in verse 22), was to put an end to the painful and laborious times of the Law and so that all men should be justified by faith, 3:2.  It is then necessary to reject here the Commentaries of the Fathers, and also some such as Duncan, who enlarge upon the educative role of the Law.  As Guthrie points out, Paul intends to show the inferior function of the Law as compared with Christ.  The Law was essentially, a disciplinarian.

            Some exegetes, Cole and Williams, take the Law as the active agency for salvation.  But this seems to introduce a thought somewhat alien to Paul's earlier argument.  The Law could shut us up to sin and lead us to Christ at one and the same time.  In the present phrase the preposition `eis' must mean "up to," which therefore requires the interpretation that the Law's function as a pedagogue ended with the advent of Christ. - (Guthrie).

           

3:25.  The conclusion.  `De' is not adversative.  Paul now writes of a man's actual situation before God.  The pronoun `we', means Paul, the Galatians and, in fact, all men.  We live in the present times, that is, the times of faith and not under the period of the Law.  The Church is always menaced by two temptations:-

1/   Its advance on the events of salvation and to imagine the Kingdom of God has already  come.

2/    Its delay and forgetfulness of the new situation inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

           

When Paul writes that faith has come, he is not thinking of the experience of faith as such, substituting the duration of legal servitude.  But faith has come because Jesus Christ has come and He has made it possible and urgent for faith to come.  Paul writes no more about the pedagogue, and we no longer submit to him.

           

It would however be absurd to imagine that Paul assigned to the Law the task of preparing the pagans before their adherence to the faith of the Gospel.  The idea of a legal preparation of pagans as infants on the way, preparing for the entrance into the Church, does not appear in the New Testament.  The Law was not a means of preparing pagans to receive Christ.  We are no longer under a tutor, for we have now put away childish things.

           

3:26.  The imagery of the pedagogue leads Paul on to that of sons or rather, adult sonship.  The Galatians were sons of God, but they had forgotten in their return to the infantile religion of Judaism.  They had forgotten the fact that they were sons, and refused to accept the fact that they had reached their majority. 

           

We may think of a son who, at his 21st party, deliberately refuses to accept the key, but turns to his father and says that he prefers to continue as a dependant infant.  Paul recalls them to the reality of their spiritual adulthood.  All were sons of God, that is, every member or all the members of the Church.  All believers and the Galatian believers in particular, were sons of God.

           

Paul perceived the ill effects of an inferiority complex as the Galatians sought in the Law a means to raise themselves to a more impressive Divine sonship.  So Paul reminds them of what faith had done for them.  He reminds them that the sonship is not an exceptional spiritual or moral state, but sonship is the real and universal condition of all believers before God.  All were sons by faith.  Was it then, their faith that gave the Galatians the dignity of sonship?  No.  They had received the dignity of sons by submitting to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

           

But "faith" is the act by which I recognize that God has made me His son in Jesus Christ.   What is this faith in Christ Jesus?  Is it not the personal trust and faith that resides in Christ Jesus, so that it would be a matter of imitating Him, so as to be sons like Him who is the unique Son:  Neither is it, the faith in Christ Jesus in that Jesus Christ is the object of this faith.  If that had been Paul's sense he would have used the simple Genitive, or the preposition `pros', or `eis':  Neither is it faith through Jesus Christ in the sense He should be the instrument or means, but it is the faith which consists in being in Jesus Christ.

           

To be in Christ Jesus is not to be under the Law according to Paul.  It is not to rest on legal works, but to lean with confidence and submission on Jesus Christ alone.  Stamm observes :  "Christian freedom is grounded on right relation with God.  All, that is, both Jew and Gentile."  Stamm says it is better to interprete verse 26 as, "in Christ Jesus....through faith." RSV.  Christ is the Son of God, and all who are in Him as members of His Body, the Church, are sons of God.

           

Guthrie writes:  The phrase, "in Christ Jesus," contrasts with the position of those under the custody of the Law.  For believers there is a remarkable change of sphere.  The Phrase may be understood either as relating to "sons of God," or to "faith."  The result is the same, although the emphasis is different.  Sonship exists only in Christ, and this is no doubt part of Paul's thought here.  But it is equally integral to Paul's theology, but faith must be centred in Christ.

            "All sons of God, - this stands out in bold relief when compared with the status of those who still need a pedagogue.  When a child grows to the age of maturity and responsibility, he takes on full privilege of sonship.  The superiority of the Gospel over Law could hardly be more succinctly stated.  It is a sign of sonship when the services of the pedagogue is no longer needed.    Note the adjective `all'.  This stands in contrast to the narrowness of the Jewish outlook.  This `all' is further illustrated in verse 28, as inclusive of all kinds of people.

           

3:27.  Verses 27-28 bring together an unexpected element in Paul's thought.  The principle idea of the context which re-appears in verse 29, is that the believers are the true heirs of the promises made to Abraham.  Verses 27-28, express by the way, a practical consequence of this inheritance through faith alone, the abolishing of all human differences and distinctions.  If it is faith alone that puts a man, whatever his origin, in the benefit of God's promises; then all distinctions, religious, racial, national, social, and even sexual, have passed with the advent of Christ.

           

`Osoi' does not mean "all those among you who have been baptized into Christ," but "you who have been baptized into Christ."  Paul does not establish a distinction in the Galatian Churches, that is, between those who have received baptism and those who have not received it.  Paul was fully aware that all his readers had been baptized and illustrated his thought  (gar) by the rite of baptism.  To be baptized into (within) Christ, or as denoting a movement towards Christ.  And by this, signifying that the death of Christ considered as the judgment of God upon sin, is appropriated to the believer.  The baptized is considered in a concrete way under the stroke of condemnation, signified in the Cross of Christ.  Baptism involves the question of historical realism, judicial and theocratic:-

1/   Baptism has not the sense of that of the application to the believer of the history of  Christ on the Cross.

2/   Baptism does not signify an actual judgment, the juridicial decision of God on the believer; It has only to do with the thought of God in respect to the sinner.

3/   Baptism does not actualize the will of God.  The believer is baptized (passive) by the minister of the Church. 

This expression does not signify firstly, that the believer is incorporated by baptism into the Body of Christ, the Church, nor that he is put into relation with the individual communion by baptism with the Christ-Spirit.  Baptism is not a rite denoting a great change, but a rite marking the complete isolation before God, of the believer, the object of his religious and social corroboration.

           

In receiving baptism the Galatians have put on Christ.  Paul uses this expression, "baptized into Christ," to serve.  His idea of the equality and unity of believers as they are stripped by baptism of every prerogative of self before God.  All believers are now clothed with the unique and sufficient dignity of Christ who has died for them.  The verb "clothed," is frequent in the Epistles, and has various significations.  Paul spoke of putting on Jesus Christ.  Such as Rom.13:14, in this last case, it is in the imperfective, and does not mention baptism.  In the Hellenistic rites, the initiative sometimes puts on a mask of the divinity from whom he receives salvation.

           

One text insists on a unique dignity common to all Christians, for Jesus Christ has died for all.  Stamm suggests that to put on Christ, is to clothe oneself with His character, to be like Him.  One way of being initiated into a mystery cult was to put on a robe symbolical of the diety, which was supposed to endow the initiate with the character, dignity and power of his god.

           

Baptism, `eis christon', "into Christ," was more than baptism with reference to Christ, or calling upon the name of Christ, or "becoming a member of His Body," the Church.  All of these ideas were included.  Pronouncing the name of Christ was believed to charge the baptismal water with the celestial substance of His glorified resurrection body, which conveyed His presence.  When a convert was baptized "into" Christ, he was immersed into water permeated with Christ's "spiritual body."  He could say literally, "I am in Christ and Christ is in me."  To be baptized into Christ was to be immersed in His character, to take up the cross and produce the fruit of the His Spirit. (Stamm).  Guthrie writes, "have put on Christ."  Everything has now to be related to Christ.

           

3:28.  Paul attempts to make them realize their unity in Christ.  Paul's entire argument has aimed to safeguard the unity in the Church between Jewish Christians and pagan Christians.  This was the true aim of the Epistle. In Galatia as formerly in Antioch.  This communion, concrete and visible in the `Supper', was liable to be broken.  Unity was endangered.  The particular thing that threatened its unity was the Jewish contention that there must be ritual uniformity as to circumcision.  Against this carnal unity or uniformity Paul sets up the idea of unity in Christ founded on all the religious implications signified in baptism.

           

The word `eni' obviously stands here for `enesti'.  The unity in the Church is that which is hidden and the true value before God.  It is not seen by the eyes of men.  The believers, all believers, are one though they appear many and may appear to be quite different from one another.  Yet they are one.  It is not necessary to speak of sacramental unity.

           

The first antagonism overcome by Christ was that which opposed the Jews and Greeks, especially Greeks in a pagan sense.  The terms freeman and slave may point to Christian liberty as opposed to slavery of law, but it must refer to the social distinction current among men of that time, such as freemen and slaves.  The early church gathered into its brotherhood men and women of every social distinction between men and women (male and female), is exceeded and overcome by the advent of Christ.

           

The advent of Christ has broken down all such distinctions.  Such distinctions have been superseded, but not abolished in the church, but the fraternal communion shows clearly that they are not held as final.  They belong to our fleeting existence, even such a distinction as male and female is classed along with freemen and slaves.  They belong to the same category and are superseded in Christ, if not abolished.  Paul feels he has something more important to say, than merely that on the slave or the woman.  It is the fact that they are members of the same church, but deprived as all other members of all dignity that is their own, and they are clothed as all other members with the dignity that belongs to Christ alone.

           

The word `one' has given much trouble.  Does Paul understand it in a moral sense: "In love?"  Or does he understand it in an ecclesiastical sense:  one in the unique body the Church, in which the members are one despite the diversity of the members?  Or is it to be understood in a Christological sense:  that is, all are not one accept there is only one Lord?  Jesus Christ and we are one as participating in his life.  None of these senses is to be wholly excluded.  These essential things should be pointed out:

           

1/   That this unity has no explanation than in Jesus Christ.  He is the essence of its oneness.  It is a unity He confers. He is its basis and constitutes its reality.

2/   That this unity in Christ ought to translate itself into the real life of the Church either by the participation of its members in the love-feast, or by the decided renouncement of all ritualistic uniformity.  But such a renouncement may not unify the church.  But the different issues may become more acute and serious.

           

Ridderbos:  In Christ there is no descent, rank or sex.  The bond in Christ overcomes all distinctions.  Paul is not expressing a hope, but Christ has overcome every distinction.  Paul is expressing a fact.  In Christ there is a new bond which leaps over colour, culture and customs.

           

"Slave nor Free" - social distinctions.  For the Jews the idea of slavery was abhorrent.  Consequently they had as much contempt for slaves in particular as for Gentiles in general.  When masters could learn to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ, the barrier between them was broken. "Slave nor free": - social distinctions have always been serious obstacles in human relationships.

           

"Male nor Female."  The Jew tended to despise the woman.  But the same approach was true of the majority of the Gentile world.  Macedonia was an exception.  (Guthrie).

           

The apostle himself drew some distinctions between the sexes as far as their functions within the church were concerned, but no distinctions over their position in Christ.  "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  The full force of the masculine gender of `eis', "one," should be retained, for the idea is not of a unified organization, but of a unified personality.  This is a spiritual unity, inseparably connected with the believer’s personal position in Christ.  (Guthrie).

           

3:29.  This verse recovers the central idea of the context.  This central idea finds its application in verses 27 and 28.  The Galatians are the true posterity of Abraham.  They are then, the beneficiaries of the promises made to Abraham by God.

           

The `ei' is affirmative, "if you are and you are all such."  To be Christ's is to belong to him.  This is in a historic and objective sense, so that we belong to him in virtue of what he has been made for us.

           

In verse 16 and 19, it is Christ alone, who was the offspring. In an individual sense he is the offspring of Abraham.  But Paul now uses the word in its familiar collective sense as in the Septuagint.  All believers are together the posterity of Abraham and beneficiaries of the divine promises.  They are not children of Abraham, in virtue of their faith.  But they are children of Abraham by the fact that these promises have been accomplished in Christ Jesus and are now offered in their final and full realisation and are given to all believers, to Jewish and pagan alike.  Both share together on earth the promise of the eschatological salvation promise to Abraham.

           

Verse 29 sums up one of the great ideas of the chapter.