Cx. UL] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 125
contradict Paul’s assertions in Rom. vii. 12-25. In repre- senting the law as subordinate and temporary he does not impugn it as a divine institution.
20. Nowa mediator is not a mediator of one (6 dé peoirns évos ovK éoTw). Observe, 1. Aé is explanatory, not antithetic. The verse illustrates the conception of mediator. 2. The arti- cle, the mediator, has a generic force: the mediator according to the general and proper conception of his function. Comp. the apostle (2 Cor. xii. 12); the shepherd, the good (J. x. 11). 3. ‘Evos of one, is to be explained by the following eis, so that it is masculine and personal. We are not to supply party or law. The meaning is: the conception of mediator does not belong to an individual considered singly. One is not a mediator of his single self, but he is a mediator between two contracting parties; in this case between God and the people of Israel, as Lev. xxvi. 46; thus differing from Christ, who is called the mediator of a new covenant (Heb. vill. 6; ix. 15; xii. 24). The new covenant, the gospel, was not a contract. Accordingly ver. 20 serves to define the true con- ception of a mediator, and through this definition to make clearer the difference between the law, which required a mediator, and the promise, which is the simple expression of God’s will. The very idea of mediation supposes two parties. The law is of the nature of a contract between God and the Jewish people. The validity of the contract depends on its fulfilment by both parties. Hence it is contingent, not absolute.
But God is one (6 de Oeds eis éotiv). God does not need a mediator to make his promise valid. His promise is not of the nature of a contract between two parties. His promise depends on his own individual decree. He dealt with Abra- ham singly and directly, without a mediator. The dignity of the law is thus inferior to that of the promise.
21. Against the promises (kata Tay érayyehiav). Does it follow from the difference between the law and the promises
126 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. IIL
that they are in antagonism? Paul supposes this objection on the part of a Jewish Christian.
God forbid (4) yévorro). See on Rom. iii. 4. This could only be true in case the law gave life, for life must come either through the promises or through the law. If the law is against the promises, and makes them invalid, it follows that life must come through the law, and therefore righteous- ness, without which there is no life, would verily (évtws), just as the Judaisers claim, be through the law.
By the law. ‘Tisch., Rev. T., Weiss, retain é« vouou from, resulting from the law. WH. read év vou in the law. The meaning is substantially the same with either reading: in the one case proceeding from, in the other restding in the law.
22. But it is not true that the law gives life, for the law, according to scripture, condemned all alike.
The scripture (%) ypa¢2). Scripture is personified. See on ver. 8.
Hath concluded (avvéxrecev). Better, hath shut up, asa jailer. Only in Paul, with the exception of L. vy. 6. Frequent in LXX. Not included with others, but confined as within an enclosure, as L. v. 6, of the net enclosing the fish. Comp. Ex. xiv. 3; Josh. vi. 1; 1 Mace. iv. 31. Scripture, in its divine utterances on the universality and guilt of sin, is conceived as a jailer who shuts all up in sin as in a prison. Comp. Rom. iii. 10-19; xi. 32.
All (ra wavra). Neuter, all things collectively : = all men. For the neuter in a similar comprehensive sense, see 1 Cor.
i, 27; ‘Col. 1, 20s) inlet. 10,