Gal 3:19-29 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 19. Wherefore then serveth the law ? This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the Divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing, and is the law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator. It was added , προσετεθη. It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement, on the part of God, for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that. Because of transgressions . On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter men from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince men of it, and thus to be "ancillary" to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the law of God as given to apostate man, arid this use of the law still exists. This effect of the law is accomplished (1) by showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong. (2.) It shows us the nature and extent of transgression, by showing us how far we have departed from it. (3.) It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus fitted to reveal its true nature. (4.) It is fitted to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is. ; , also . (5.) It thus shows its own inability to justify and save men, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead men to the cross of the Redeemer. . At the same time, (6.) the law was given with reference to transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties. When Paul says that the law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes, ( Calvin ,) but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows men their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which men must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of men. Till the seed should come , etc. The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. See . It is not implied here that the law would be of no use after that, but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should comic, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing men the nature of transgression, and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete, and in many respects unintelligible, until he came--as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save men, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying men, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven. And it was ordained by angels . That is, the law was ordained by angels. The word ordained, here, διαταγεις, usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here, that the law was ordained by angels, . The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. Comp. . The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man. In the Septuagint there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is, "From his right hand went a fiery law for them." The Seventy render this, "His angels with him on his right hand." Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels, . The Hebrew is, "Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came [literally] with ten thousands of holiness;" that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads, By the holy myriads here mentioned, what can be meant but the angels ? The word "holy," in the Scriptures, is not given to storms, and winds, and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings. The same sentiment is found in : "The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary." Does not this evidently imply, that when he gave the law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? See Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565--567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world , that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man. In the hand . That is, under the direction or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels, or by their disposition, it was under the control of a mediator. Rosenmuller, however, and others, suppose that this means simply by , ( per ;); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the mediator, here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation, however, will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word mediator. Of a mediator . The word mediator μεσιτου means, properly, one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius , or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man, . There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson, ( Lex .,) Chandler, and many others, suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should be regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are, (1.) that the name mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures. (2.) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament. (3.) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle's reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him, until he, the "promised seed," should come. (4.) It is only by such an interpretation that the following "vexed" verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible. These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For (1) it was given hundreds of years after the promise. (2.) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise. (3.) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that This should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary, to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing, that the law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption. (*) "serveth" "To what purpose then was" (c) "It was" (d) "seed" (a) "by angels" (b) "a mediator"

Galatians 3:19-29

Verse 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the Divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing, and is the law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator.

It was added, προσετεθη. It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement, on the part of God, for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that.

Because of transgressions. On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter men from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince men of it, and thus to be "ancillary" to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the law of God as given to apostate man, arid this use of the law still exists. This effect of the law is accomplished

(1) by showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.

(2.) It shows us the nature and extent of transgression, by showing us how far we have departed from it.

(3.) It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus fitted to reveal its true nature.

(4.) It is fitted to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is. Rom 4:15; Rom 7:7, also Rom 7:8-11.

(5.) It thus shows its own inability to justify and save men, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead men to the cross of the Redeemer. Gal 3:24. At the same time,

(6.) the law was given with reference to transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties. When Paul says that the law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes, (Calvin,) but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows men their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which men must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of men.

Till the seed should come, etc. The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. See Gal 3:16. It is not implied here that the law would be of no use after that, but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should comic, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing men the nature of transgression, and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete, and in many respects unintelligible, until he came--as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save men, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying men, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven.

And it was ordained by angels. That is, the law was ordained by angels. The word ordained, here, διαταγεις, usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here, that the law was ordained by angels, Acts 7:13. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. Comp. Heb 2:2. The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man. In the Septuagint De 33:2 there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is, "From his right hand went a fiery law for them." The Seventy render this, "His angels with him on his right hand." Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels, De 33:2. The Hebrew is, "Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came [literally] with ten thousands of holiness;" that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads, By the holy myriads here mentioned, what can be meant but the angels? The word "holy," in the Scriptures, is not given to storms, and winds, and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings. The same sentiment is found in Ps 68:17: "The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary." Does not this evidently imply, that when he gave the law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? See Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565--567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world, that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man.

In the hand. That is, under the direction or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels, or by their disposition, it was under the control of a mediator. Rosenmuller, however, and others, suppose that this means simply by, (per;); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the mediator, here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation, however, will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word mediator.

Of a mediator. The word mediator μεσιτου means, properly, one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius, or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man, 1Timm 2:5, Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24. There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson, (Lex.,) Chandler, and many others, suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should be regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are,

(1.) that the name mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures.

(2.) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament.

(3.) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle's reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him, until he, the "promised seed," should come.

(4.) It is only by such an interpretation that the following "vexed" verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible. These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For

(1) it was given hundreds of years after the promise.

(2.) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise.

(3.) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that This should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary, to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing, that the law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption.

(*) "serveth" "To what purpose then was" (c) "It was" Rom 5:20 (d) "seed" Gal 3:16 (a) "by angels" Acts 7:53 (b) "a mediator" Ex 20:19-22, De 5:22-31 Verse 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, etc. This verse has given great perplexity to commentators. "There is, unquestionably," says Bloomfield, "no passage in the New Testament that has so much, and to so little purpose, exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators as the present, which seems to defy all attempts to elicit any satisfactory sense, except by methods so violent as to be almost the same thing as writing the passage afresh." In regard, however, to the truth of the declarations here--that "a mediator is not a mediator of one," and that "God is one"--there cad be no doubt, and no difficulty. The very idea of a mediator supposes that there are two parties or persons between whom the mediator comes, either to reconcile them or to bear some message from the one to the other; and it is abundantly affirmed also, in the Old Testament, that there is but one God. See De 6:4. But the difficulty is, to see the pertinency or the bearing of the remark on the argument of the apostle. What does he intend to illustrate by the declaration? and how do the truths which he states illustrate the point before him? It is not consistent with the design of these Notes to detail the numerous opinions which have been entertained of the passage. They may be found in the larger commentaries, and particularly may be seen in Koppe, Excursus vii., on the Galatians. After referring to a number of works on the passage, Rosenmuller adopts the following interpretation, proposed by Noesselt, as expressing the true sense: But he (i.e., Moses) is not a mediator of one race, (to wit, the Abrahamic,) but God is the same God of them and of the Gentiles. The sense according to this is, that Moses had not reference in his office as mediator or as internuncius to the descendants of Abraham, or to that one seed or race, referred to in the promise. He added the hard conditions of the law; required its stem and severe observances; his institutions pertained to the Jews mainly. They indeed might obtain the favour of God, but by compliance with the severe laws which he had ordained. But to the one seed, the whole posterity of Abraham, they concerning whom the promise was made, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he had no reference in his institutions: all their favours, therefore, must depend on the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. But God is one and the same in reference to all. His promise pertains to all. He is the common God to the Jews and the Gentiles. There is great difficulty in embracing this view of the passage, but it is not necessary for me to state the difficulty, or to attempt to show that the view here proposed cannot be defended. Whitby has expressed substantially the same interpretation of this passage: "But this mediator (namely, Moses) was only the mediator of the Jews, and so was only the mediator of one party, to whom belonged the blessing of Abraham, Gal 3:8,14. But God, who made the promise, `That in one should all the families of the earth be blessed,' is one; the God of the other party, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and so as ready to justify the one as the other." According to this interpretation, the sense is, that Moses was mediator of one part of Abraham's seed, the Israelites; but was not the mediator of the other part of that seed, the Gentiles; yet there was the same God to both parties, who was equally ready to justify both. Locke has expressed a view of the passage which differs somewhat from this, but which has quite as much plausibility. According to his exposition it means, that God was but one of the parties to the promise. The Jews and the Gentiles made up the other. But at the giving of the law, Moses was a mediator only between God and the Israelites, and, therefore, could not transact anything which would tend to the disannulling of the promise which was between God and the Jews and Gentiles together, the other party to the promise. Or in other words, at the covenant made on Mount Sinai, there was really present but one of the parties, and consequently nothing could be done that would affect the other. Moses did not appear in behalf of the Gentiles. They had no representative there. He was engaged only for the Jews, for a part only of the one party, and that part could not transact anything for the whole. The giving of the law, therefore, could not affect the promise which was made to Abraham, and which related to the Jews and the Gentiles as together constituting one party. This view is plausible. It has been adopted by Doddridge, and perhaps may be the true interpretation. No one can deny, however, that it is forced, and that it is far from being obvious. It seems to be making a meaning for the apostle, or furnishing him with an argument, rather than explaining the one which he has chosen to use; and it may be doubted whether Paul would have used an argument that required so much explanation as this before it could be understood. All these expositions proceed on the supposition that the word "mediator" here refers to Moses, and that the transaction here referred to was that on Mount Sinai. I would suggest a sense of the passage which I have found in none of the commentaries which I have consulted, and which I would, therefore, propose with diffidence. All that I can claim for it is, that it may possibly be the meaning. According to the view which I shall submit, the words here are to be regarded as used in their usual signification; and the simplest interpretation possible is to be given to the propositions in the verse. One proposition is, that a mediator is not appointed with reference to one party, but to two. This proposition is universal. Wherever there is a mediator, there are always two parties. The other proposition is, that God is one; that is, that he is the same one God, in whatever form his will may be made known to men--whether by a promise as to Abraham, or by the law as to Moses. The interpretation which I would propose embraces the following particulars:

(1.) The design of the apostle is, to show that the giving of the law could not abrogate or affect the promise made to Abraham; and to show at the same time what is its true object. It could not annul the promises, says Paul. It was given long after, and could not affect them Gal 3:17. It was an addition, an appendage, a subsequent enactment for a specific purpose, yet a part of the same general plan, and subordinate to the Mediator, Gal 3:19. It was to be shown also that the law was not against the promises of God. It was a good law, Gal 3:21; and was not designed to be an opposing system, or intended to counteract the promise, or the scheme of salvation by promise, but was a part of the same great plan.

(2.) A mediator always supposes two parties. In all the transactions, therefore, where a mediator is employed, there is supposed to be two parties. When, therefore, the promise was made to Abraham with reference to the Messiah, the great Mediator, and when the law was given in the hand of the Mediator, and under his control, there is always supposed to be two parties.

(3.) The whole arrangement here referred to is under the Mediator, and with reference to him. The promise made to Abraham had reference to him, and to those who should believe on him; and the law given by Moses was also under him, and with reference to him. He was the grand object and agent of all. He was the Mediator with reference to both. Each transaction had reference to him, though in different ways; the transaction with Abraham relating to him in connexion with a promise; the transaction at the giving of the law being under his control as Mediator, and being a part of the one great plan. There was an identity of plan; and the plan had reference to the Messiah, the great Mediator.

(4.) God is one and the same. He is throughout one of the parties; and he does not change. However the arrangements may vary, whether in giving the law or imparting a promise, he is the same. There is but one God in all the transaction; and he, throughout, constitutes one of the parties. The other party is man, at first receiving the promise from this one God with reference to the Mediator through Abraham, and then receiving the law through the same Mediator on Mount Sinai. He is still the one party unchanged; and there is the same Mediator, implying all along that there are two parties.

(5.) It follows, therefore, agreeably to the argument of the apostle, that the law given so long after the promise could not abrogate it, because they pertained to the same plan, were under the same one God, who was one unchanging party in all this transaction, and had reference to the same Mediator, and were alike under his control. It followed, also, that the law was temporary, Gal 3:19 interposed for important purposes until the "seed should come," because it was a part of the same general arrangement, and was under the control of the same Mediator, and directed by the same one God, the unchanging one party in all these transactions. It followed, further, that the one could not be against the other, Gal 3:21, because they were a part of the same plan, under the control of the same Mediator, and where the same God remained unchanged as the one party. All that is assumed in this interpretation is,

(a.) that there was but one plan or arrangement, or that the transaction with Abraham and with Moses were parts of one great scheme; and,

(b.) that the Mediator here referred to was not Moses, but the Messiah, the Son of God. The following paraphrase will express the sense which I have endeavoured to convey: "The giving of the law could not annul or abrogate the promise

made to Abraham. It was long after that, and it was itself

subservient to that. It was given by the instrumentality of

angels, and it was entirely under the control of the

Mediator, the Messiah. The plan was one; and all the parts

of it, in the promise made to Abraham, and in the giving of

the law, were subordinate to him. A mediator always supposes

two parties; and the reference to the mediator, alike in the

promise to Abraham and in the giving of the law, supposes

that there were two parties. God is one party--the same

unchanging God in all the forms of the promise and of the

law. In this state of things, it is impossible that the law

should clash with the promise, or that it should supersede

or modify it. It was a part of the one great plan;

appointed with reference to the work which the Mediator

came to do, and in accordance with the promise made to

Abraham; and therefore they could not be contradictory

and inconsistent."

It is assumed in all this that the Messiah was contemplated in the whole arrangement, and that it was entered into with reference to him. That this may be assumed no one can deny who believes the Scriptures. The whole arrangement in the Old Testament, it is supposed, was designed to be ancillary to redemption; and the interpretation which has been submitted above is based on that supposition.

(c) "God is one" De 6:4 Verse 21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Is the law of Moses to be regarded as opposed to the promises made to Abraham? Does this follow from any view which can be taken of the subject? The object of the apostle in asking this question is, evidently, to take an opportunity to deny, in the most positive manner, that there can be any such clashing or contradiction. He shows, therefore, what was the design of the law, and declares that the object was to further the plan contemplated in the promise made to Abraham. It was an auxiliary to that. It was as good as a law could be; and it was designed to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.

God forbid. It cannot be. It is impossible. I do not hold such an opinion. Such a sentiment by no means follows from what has been advanced. Comp. Rom 3:4.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life. The law of Moses is as good as a law can be. It is pure, and holy, and good. It is not the design to insinuate anything against the law in itself, or to say that as a law it is defective. But law could not give life. It is not its nature; and man cannot be justified by obedience to it. No man ever has yielded perfect compliance with it, and no man, therefore, can be justified by it. Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10.

Verily righteousness should have been by the law. Or justification would have been secured by the law. The law of Moses was as well adapted to this as a law could be. No better law could have been originated for this purpose; and if men were to attempt to justify themselves before God by their own works, the law of Moses would be as favourable for such an undertaking as any law which could be revealed. It is as reasonable, and equal, and pure. Its demands are as just, and its terms as favourable, as could be any of the terms of mere law. And such a law has been given, in part, in order to show that. justification by the law is out of the question. If men could not be justified by a law so pure, and equal, and just, so reasonable in all its requirements, and so perfect, how could they expect to be justified by conformity to any inferior or less perfect rule of life? The fact, therefore, that no one can be justified by the pure law revealed on Mount Sinai, for ever settles the question about the possibility of being justified by law.

(a) "against the promises" Mt 5:17 (b) "if there had been" Gal 2:21 Verse 22. But the Scripture. The Old Testament, Jn 5:39, containing the law of Moses.

Hath concluded all under sin. Has shut up συνεκλεισεν all under the condemnation of sin; that is, has declared all men, no matter what their rank and external character, to be sinners. Of course, they cannot be justified by that law which declares them to be guilty, and which condemns them, any more than the law of the land will acquit a murderer, and pronounce him innocent, at the same time that it holds him to be guilty. In regard to the meaning of the expression here used, Rom 11:32. Comp. Rom 3:9,19.

That the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, etc. That the promise referred to in the transaction with Abraham, the promise of justification and life by faith in the Messiah. Here we see one design of the law. It was to show that they could not be justified by their own works, to hedge up their way in regard to justification by their own righteousness, and to show them their need of a better righteousness. The law accomplishes the same end now. It shows men that they are guilty; and it does it in order that they may be brought under the influence of the pure system of the gospel, and become interested in the promises which are connected with eternal salvation.

(c) "all under sin" Rom 3:19,19,23 (d) "promise by faith" Rom 4:11,12,16 Verse 23. But before faith came. That is, the system of salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus. Faith here denotes the Christian religion, because faith is its distinguishing characteristic.

We were kept under the law. We, who were sinners; we, who have violated the law. It is a general truth, that before the gospel was introduced, men were under the condemning sentence of the law.

Shut up unto the faith. Enclosed by the law with reference to the full and glorious revelation of a system of salvation by faith. The design and tendency of the law was to shut us up to that as the only method of salvation. All other means failed. The law condemned every other mode, and the law condemned all who attempted to be justified in any other way. Man, therefore, was shut up to that as his last hope; and could look only to that for any possible prospect of salvation. The word which in this verse is rendered "were kept," εφρουρουμεθα, usually means to guard or watch, as in a castle, or as prisoners are guarded; and though the word should not be pressed too far in the interpretation, yet it implies that there was a rigid scrutiny observed; that the law guarded: them; that there was no way of escape; and that they were shut up, as prisoners under sentence of death, to the only hope, which was that of pardon. Verse 24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster. The word rendered schoolmaster, παιδαγωγος, whence the word pedagogue, referred originally to a slave or freedman, to whose care boys were committed, and who accompanied them to the public schools. The idea here is not that, of instructor, but there is reference to the office and duty of the paedagogus among the ancients. The office was usually intrusted to slaves or freedmen. It is true, that when the paedagogus was properly qualified, he assisted the children committed to his care in preparing their lessons. But still his main duty was not instruction, but it was to watch over the boys; to restrain them from evil and temptation; and to conduct them to the schools, where they might receive instruction. See, for illustrations of this, Wetstein, Bloomfield, etc. In the passage before us, the proper notion of pedagogue is retained. In our sense of the word schoolmaster, Christ is the schoolmaster, and not the law. The law performs the office of the ancient pedagogue, to lead us to the teacher or the instructor. That teacher or instructor is Christ. The ways in which the law does this may be the following:

(1.) It restrains us and rebukes us, and keeps us as the ancient pedagogue did his boys.

(2.) The whole law was designed to be introductory to Christ. The sacrifices and offerings were designed to shadow forth the Messiah, and to introduce him to the world.

(3.) The moral law--the law of God--shows men their sin and danger, and thus leads them to the Saviour. It condemns them, and thus prepares them to welcome the offer of pardon through a Redeemer.

(4.) It still does this. The whole economy of the Jews was designed to do this; and under the preaching of the gospel it is still done. Men see that they are condemned; they are convinced by the law that they cannot save themselves, and thus they are led to the Redeemer. The effect of the preached gospel is to showy men their sins, and thus to be preparatory, to the embracing of the offer of pardon. Hence the importance of preaching the law still; and hence it is needful that men should be made to feel that they are sinners, in order that they may be prepared to embrace the offers of mercy. Comp. Rom 10:4.

(e) "the law" Col 2:17, Heb 9:9,10 (*) "schoolmaster" "Guide" Verse 25. But after that faith is come. The scheme of salvation by faith. After that is revealed. Gal 3:23.

We are no longer under a schoolmaster. Under the pedagogus, or pedagogue. We are not kept in restraint, and under bondage, and led along to another to receive instruction. We are directly under the great Teacher, the Instructor himself; and have a kind of freedom which we were not allowed before. The bondage and servitude have passed away; and we are free from the burdensome ceremonies and expensive rites (comp. Acts 15:10) of the Jewish law, and from the sense of condemnation which it imposes. This was true of the converts from Judaism to Christianity--that they became free from the burdensome rites of the law; and it is true of all converts to the faith of Christ, that, having been made to see their sin by the law, and having been conducted by it to the cross of the Redeemer, they are now made free.

(*) "schoolmaster" "guide" Verse 26. For ye are all the children of God, etc. All who bear the Christian name--the converts from among the Jews and Gentiles alike. Jn 1:12. The idea here is, that they are no longer under tutors and governors; they are no longer subject to the direction and will of the paedagogus; they are arrived at age, and are admitted to the privileges of sons. Gal 4:1. The language here is derived from the fact, that until the son arrived at age, he was in many respects not different from a servant. He was under laws and restraints, and subject to the will of another. When of age, he entered on the privileges of heirship, and was free to act for himself. Thus, under the law, men were under restraints, and subject to heavy exactions. Under the gospel, they are free, and admitted to the privileges of the sons of God.

(a) "children of God" Jn 1:12, 1Jn 3:1,2 Verse 27. For as many of you. Whether by nature Jews or Gentiles.

As have been baptized into Christ. Or unto εις--the same preposition which, in Gal 3:24, is rendered unto Christ. That is, they were baptized with reference to him, or receiving him as the Saviour. See this explained Rom 6:3.

Have put on Christ. That is, they have put on his sentiments, opinions, characteristic traits, etc., as a man clothes himself. This language was common among the ancient writers. Rom 13:14.

(c) "For as many of you" Rom 6:3 Verse 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek. All are on a level; all are saved in the same way; all are entitled to the same privileges. There is no favoritism on account of birth, beauty, or blood. All confess that they are sinners; all are saved by the merits of the same Saviour; all are admitted to the same privileges as children of God. The word "Greek" here is used to denote the Gentiles generally; since the whole world was divided by the Jews into "Jews and Greeks"-- the Greeks being the foreign nation best known to them. The Syriac renders it here "Aramean," using the word to denote the Gentiles generally. The meaning is, that whatever was the birth, or rank, or nation, or colour, or complexion, all under the gospel were on a level. They were admitted to the same privileges, and endowed with the same hopes of eternal life. This does not mean that all the civil distinctions among men are to be disregarded; it does not mean that no respect is to be shown to those in office, or to men in elevated rank; it does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all men are on a level in regard to religion. This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that men are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society. Paul means to teach that no man has any preference or advantage in the kingdom of God because he is a rich man, or because he is of elevated rank; no one is under any disadvantage because he is poor, or because he is ignorant, or a slave. All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation, and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood, and arranged in ranks according to their eminence in holiness. Comp. Isa 56:8.

There is neither bond nor free. The condition of a free man does not give him any peculiar claims or advantages in regard to religion; and the condition of a slave does not exclude him from the hope of heaven, or from being regarded as a child of God, on the same terms, and entitled to the same privileges as his master. In regard to religion, they are on the same level. They are alike sinners, and are alike saved by grace. They sit down at the same communion table; and they look forward to the same heaven. Christianity does not admit the one to favour because he is free, or exclude the other because he is a slave. Nor, when they are admitted to favour, does it give the one a right to lord it over the other, or to feel that he is of any more value in the eye of the Redeemer, or any nearer to his heart. The essential idea is, that they are on a level, and that they are admitted to the favour of God without respect to their external condition in society. I do not see any evidence in this passage that the Christian religion designed to abolish slavery, any more than I do in the following phrase, "there is neither male nor female," that it was intended to abolish the distinction of the sexes; nor do I see in this passage any evidence that there should not be proper respect shown by the servant to his master, though both of them are Christians, any more than there is in the following phrase, that suitable respect should not be shown in the intercourse with the sexes. Comp. 1Timm 6:1-5. But the proof is explicit, that masters and slaves may alike become Christians on the same terms, and are, in regard to their religious privileges and hopes, on a level. No peculiar favour is shown to the one, in the matter of salvation, because he is free, nor is the other excluded because he is a slave. And from this it follows,

(1.) that they should sit down to the same communion table. There should be no invidious and odious distinctions there.

(2.) They should be regarded alike as Christian brethren in the house of God, and should be addressed and treated accordingly.

(3.) The slave should excite the interest, and receive the watchful care of the pastor, as well as his master. Indeed, he may need it more; and from his ignorance, and the fewness of his opportunities, it may be proper that special attention should be bestowed on him. In regard to this doctrine of Christianity, that there is neither "bond nor free" among those who are saved, or that all are on a level in regard to salvation, we may remark further,

(1.) that it is peculiar to Christianity. All other systems of religion and philosophy make different ranks, and endeavour to promote the distinctions of caste among men. They teach that certain men are the favourites of heaven, in virtue of their birth or their rank in life, or that they have peculiar facilities for salvation. Thus, in India, the Brahmin is regarded as, by his birth, the favourite of heaven, and all others are supposed to be of a degraded rank. The great effort of men, in their systems of religion and philosophy, has been to show that there are favoured ranks and classes, and to make permanent distinctions on account of birth and blood. Christianity regards all men as made of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth, Acts 17:26, and esteems them all to be equal in the matter of salvation; and whatever notions of equality prevail in the world, are to be traced to the influence of the Christian religion.

(2.) If men are regarded as equal before God, and as entitled to the same privileges of salvation; if there is in the great work of redemption "neither bond nor free," and those who are in the church are on a level, then such a view will induce a master to treat his slave with kindness, when that relation exists. The master who has any right feelings will regard his servant as a Christian brother, redeemed by the same blood as himself, and destined to the same heaven. He will esteem him not as "a chattel," or "a thing," or as a piece "of property," but he will regard him as an immortal being, destined with himself to the same heaven, and about to sit down with him in the realms of glory. How can he treat such a brother with unkindness or severity? How can he rise from the same communion table with him, and give way to violent feelings against him, and regard him and treat him as if he were a brute? And Christianity, by the simple principle that "the slave is a brother in the Lord," will do more to mitigate the horrors of slavery than all the enactments that men can make, and all the other views and doctrines which can be made to prevail in society. See Phm 1:16.

(3.) This doctrine would lead to universal emancipation. All are on a level before God. In the kingdom of Jesus there is neither bond nor free. One is as much an object of favour as another. With this feeling, how can a Christian hold his fellow Christian in bondage? How can he regard as "a chattle," or "a thing," one who, like himself, is an heir of glory? How can he sell him on whom the blood of Jesus has been sprinkled? Let him feel that his slave is his equal in the sight of God; that with himself he is an heir of glory; that together they are soon to stand on Mount Sion above; that the slave is an immortal being, and has been redeemed by the blood of Calvary, and how can he hold such a being in bondage, and how can he transfer him from place to place, and from hand to hand, for gold? If all masters and all slaves were to come Christians, slavery would at once cease; and the prevalence of the single principle before us would put an end to all the ways banished slavery from the Roman empire.

There is neither male nor female. Neither the male nor the female have any peculiar advantages for salvation. There are no favours shown on account of sex. Both sexes are, in this respect, on a level. This does not mean, of course, that the sexes are to be regarded as in all respects equal; nor can it mean that the two sexes may not have peculiar duties and privileges in other respects. It does not prove that one of the sexes may not perform important offices in the church, which would not be proper for the other. It does not prove that the duties of the ministry are to be performed by the female sex; nor that the various duties of domestic life, nor the various offices of society, should be performed without any reference to the distinction of sex. The interpretation should be confined to the matter under consideration; and the passage proves only that in regard to salvation they are on a level. One sex is not to be regarded as peculiarly the favourite of heaven, and the other to be excluded. Christianity thus elevates the female sex to an equality with the male, on the most important of all interests; and it has in this way made most important changes in the world wherever it has prevailed. Everywhere but in connexion with the Christian religion, woman has been degraded. She has been kept in ignorance. She has been treated as an inferior in all respects. She has been doomed to unpitied drudgery, and ignorance, and toil. So she was among the ancient Greeks and Romans; so she is among the savages of America; so she is in China, and India, and in the islands of the sea; so she is regarded in the Koran, and in all Mohammedan countries. It is Christianity alone which has elevated her; and nowhere on earth does man regard the mother of his children as an intelligent companion and friend, except where the influence of the Christian religion has been felt. At the communion table, at the foot of the cross, and in the hopes of heaven, she is on a level with man; and this fact diffuses a mild, and purifying, and elevating influence over all the relations of life. Woman has been raised from deep degradation by the influence of Christianity; and, let me add, she has everywhere acknowledged the debt of gratitude, and devoted herself, as under a deep sense of obligation, to lessening the burdens of humanity, and to the work of elevating the degraded, instructing the ignorant, and comforting the afflicted, all over the world. Never has a debt been better repaid, or the advantages of elevating one portion of the race been more apparent.

For ye are all one in Christ Jesus. You are all equally accepted through the Lord Jesus Christ; or you are all on the same level, and entitled to the same privileges in your Christian profession. Bond and free, male and female, Jew and Greek, are admitted to equal privileges, and are equally acceptable before God. And the church of God, no matter what may be the complexion, the country, the habits, or the rank of its members, IS ONE. Every man on whom is the image and the blood of Christ, is A BROTHER to every other one who bears that image, and should be treated accordingly. What an influence would be excited in the breaking up of the distinctions of rank and caste among men, what an effect in abolishing the prejudice on account of colour and country, if this were universally believed and felt!

(c) "neither Jew" Col 3:11 Verse 29. And if ye be Christ's. If you belong to the Messiah, and are interested in his work.

Then are ye Abraham's seed. The promise made to Abraham related to the Messiah. It was a promise that in him all should be blessed. Abraham believed in that Messiah, and was distinguished for his faith in him who was to come. If they believed in Christ, therefore, they showed that they were the spiritual descendants of Abraham. No matter whether they were Jews or Gentiles--whether they had been circumcised or not--they had the same spirit which he evinced, and were interested in the promises made to him.

And heirs according to the promise. See Rom 8:17. Are heirs of God. You inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, and partake of the felicity to which he looked forward. You have become truly heirs of God, and this is in accordance with the promise made to Abraham. It is not by the obedience of the law; it is by faith--in the same way that Abraham possessed the blessing: an arrangement before the giving of the law, and therefore one that may include all, whether Jews or Gentiles. All are on a level; and all are alike the children of God, and in the same manner, and on the same terms that Abraham was.

(a) "Abraham's seed" Gal 3:7 (b) "heirs" Rom 8:17