Before looking at the verse in question, we
must take careful account of the context and also the thrust of the
whole epistle. The latter is expressed very early in Gal. 1: 6–9.
There were those in Galatia who were
adding to the Gospel
as shown by the Apostle’s use of the word
besides in vs 8, 9. Adding to the Gospel effectively
annulled its truth.
They were not trying to replace grace with law, but seeking to
add law to grace. The
Apostle uses the strongest language in any of his letters to condemn this. It
also appears that there were those who were seeking to make Gentile
brethren into Jews, forcing them to Judaize (Gal. 2: 14). This
involved separation when eating, observation of days, and
circumcision (see Gal. 2: 12; 4: 10; 5: 2).
In chapter 3 Paul turns to Abraham and the
scriptural testimony recorded in Gen. 15: 6 that “Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gal. 3: 6). This
was long before the the law was given at Sinai and is the essence of
the Gospel (see v8), namely justification by faith. That this
blessing would be universal, and not restricted to those under law,
is shown by the further word to Abraham when God promised “In thee
all the nations shall be blessed” (v8). But then the question
arises, Why the law? This brings us to the section in question (vs
15–20).
Now Gal. 3: 15–20 contains words that we must
be very clear as to their meaning. A covenant is an agreement
between two parties. The Bible contains a number of covenants. Some
are between man and man; others between God and man. Those between
God and man may be conditional or unconditional. A covenant may
require a mediator, that is one who can stand between the two
parties
and yet have dealings with both. If a
covenant requires a mediator, then there is disparity or
disagreement between the parties. Such was the covenant of law given
at Sinai, having Moses as its mediator. (Again, the new covenant,
yet to be made with Israel and Judah, has Christ as Mediator—see
Heb. 9: 15—but the new covenant is never the subject in Galatians).
With the Abrahamic covenants there is
absolutely no thought of a mediator and when these are taken up
by Paul in the NT they are described as “the covenants of promise”
(Eph. 2: 12). Indeed, he
always uses the word
promise in connection with them (see Rom. 4: 13, 14, 16, 20, 21;
9: 8, 9; Heb. 6: 15, 17). Why? Because a promise depends for its
fulfilment only on the one who made
it and this emphasises the fact that the Abrahamic covenants were
unconditional and
depended for their fulfilment
on only one of the two
parties, that is,
on God alone.
Turning now to Gal. 3: 15–20, the Jewish
legalisers would acknowledge that the covenants made with Abraham
were authored by God. They would also contend that the law given at
Sinai was given by God and thus given
in addition. But Paul
insists that the Abrahamic covenants are entirely independent of the
law. For even among men, no one would think of adding other
dispositions to a confirmed covenant (see v 15), and the Abrahamic
covenants were confirmed by both word and oath (see Heb. 6: 17, 18).
Now while Abraham’s seed, spoken of in these covenants, is
identified with a multitude using the figures of the dust of the
earth, the sand of the sea shore and the stars of heaven to express
its magnitude (see Gen 13: 16; 22: 17 etc.), it is also identified
with singularity—“thy seed” (Gen. 22: 18). It is this oneness that
the Apostle takes up here—not “as of many; but as of one” (Gal. 3:
16), that is Christ. Now it is this singularity that is the key to
the interpretation of v20. In the Abrahamic covenants, universal
blessing for the nations is always identified with the promise to
Abraham and the promise to the seed (see Gen. 12: 3; 18: 18; 22: 18;
26: 4). This has nothing to do with the law. “Why then the law? It
was added for the sake of transgressions …” (Gal. 3: 19), so that
sin might be put to account (see Rom. 5: 13), and that its true
character may be made manifest (see Rom. 7: 13). It was added “until
the seed came” (Gal. 3: 19)—it was temporary until Christ. Clearly
the law also had Moses as a mediator, and since there was a
mediator, there were two parties and furthermore disparity between
them. But the promises to Abraham had no mediator,
and rested for their
fulfillment on one party, that is God—“God is one” (v20, my
emphasis). Again, if the law annulled the promises so as “to make
the promise of no effect” (v17) then there would be discord between
promise and law. But God was the author of
both and He cannot
disagree with Himself for “God is
one” (v20, my emphasis).
