The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 200

And to thy seed, which is Christ." With resemblance in form to the rabbinical style, of argument, this cannot be said to have anything of rabbinical feebleness. The poin~ is1 that the idea of plurality might have been brought out in the form given to the promise. It might have been said, "And to thy descendants," thus excluding reference to one in particular. Instead of that it was said," And to thy seed," which is applicable, though not necessarily limited in application, to one. The apostle, having pointed this out, declares (does not argue) that there was an intended application to Christ. As he wa.s the Seed of the woman, so also was he the Seed of Abraham. Th,,: bearing of the declaration is, that, Christ having been included in the promise, it had to be made good to him as well as to Abraham. 3. Application of the a,nalogy. (1) Position. " Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect." So far as God was concerned, the promise had full validity as soon as it was announced (Gen. xiii 16). So far as Abraham wa.s concerned, it was confirmed by the fire passin~ ben,-een the pieces of the sacrifice (Gen. xv. 17), and by oath (Gen. xxii. 18), and also by repetition (Gen. xvii. 8). It was also confirmed to the other patriarchs (Gen. xxvi. 4; xxviii. 4). That being the case, it could not be set aside by the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years later. If it bad been a covenant with conditions, then it might have been inferred that, the conditions not having been complied with, the Law had been introduced. Thus the Law would virtually have displaced the covenant. :But the apostle's position is that the covenant, being of the nature of promise, there could be no displacing of it by the Law. " So as to make the promise of none effect " comes in as qualifying the assertion. Whatever covenant the Law might have dis- placed, it could never displace a covenant of pure promise. (2) Argument by which it is supported. "For if the inheritance is of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise." The blessing is describetl as the inheritance, which had a reference beyond the land of Canaan to the heavenly Canaan, and even to the whole earth, which is now to be regarded as the earthly Canaan. If the inheritance was associated with the Law, then it must never have been promised. For promise, according to the apostle's understanding of it, is engagement to bless without conditions. l:lut the inheritance never could be associated with the Law. For it was authenticated that God freely promised it to Abraham. By this promise, then, to speak after the manner of men, God was bound. He was not in the position of a testator who could .cancel or add fresh clauses. Nor was he in the position of one who had made a covenant with conditions which had not been complied with. But having given an unconditional promise, he could not under any circumstances withdraw it. II. FouR POINTS IN WBIOH THE LAW DIFFERED FROM THE PROMISE. "What then is the Law?" 1. It was additional to the promise. "It was added because of trans- gressions." It was never intended to stand alone. It was simply intended to be ao adjunct to the promise already given and still continuing in force. "It was added because of transgressions." There is not yet brought into view the purpose which the Law served with reference to transgressions, checking them, making them clear. It is simply indicated that the introduction of the Law was necessitated by the disposition to transgress. There is the same teaching here as by our Lord with regard to the law of divorce. It was not, he said, so from the beginning; but was necessitated by the hardness of men's hearts. So, with regard to the Law and its rigour, it was not so from the beginning. God began with promise; and it was only when it was not sufficient!)· responded to that the Law was introduced, not as a substitute, but as an addition to the promise. 2. It was a temporary addition. "Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made." As it was an after institution, so it was never intended to last. It had not the permanence which belonged to the promise. It had reference to the comina of the Seed to whom the promise had been made. That was the great reason of its existence. There is not yet brought into view the purpose which the Law served with reference to the coming Seed. It is simply indicated tbat it was so related to Christ that, when he came to receive the promise, it was necess~rily done away as an institution. 3. It was given mediately by God. "Antl it was ordained through an.:ek" 'l'he connection of the angels with the giving of the Law was prominent in Jewish tradition. It is remarkable that there is no mention of them in the historical account in Exodus. 'l'hey are thus introduced in Deut. xxxiii. 2 : "The Lord came from Sinai,  166 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [en. m. 1-29.