In Light of God’s
Promise, Why the
Law? (3:15-22)

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations; even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (3: 15-22)

In 3:1-14 Paul proves from Old Testament Scripture that Abraham was justified by faith and not by law and that every other believer, whether Jew or Gentile, is likewise saved only by faith, made effective by Christ’s taking sin’s curse upon Himself.

Now the apostle anticipates the probable argument his adversaries, the Judaizers, would likely make against what he has just proved. “very well,” they would argue. “But granted that Abraham and his pre-Sinai descendants were saved by faith, it is obvious that when God gave the law to Moses, the basis of salvation changed. A new covenant was made and a new means of salvation was then established. After Moses, the basis of salvation became law in place of faith or at least as a necessary supplement to faith. The covenant with Moses annulled and supplanted the covenant with Abraham, a temporary measure God provided until He gave Moses the more perfect and complete covenant of law Abraham and others who lived before the law were saved by faith only because they did not have the law Why else would God have given the Mosaic covenant of law?”

It is that anticipated, imaginary argument that Paul answers in 3:15-22. The heart of his answer is to show that the covenant with Abraham was an unconditional covenant of promise relying solely on God’s faithfulness, whereas the covenant with Moses was a conditional covenant of law relying on man’s faithfulness. To Abraham, God said, “I will.” Through Moses He said, “Thou shalt.” The promise set forth a religion dependent on God. The law set forth a religion dependent on man. The promise centers on God’s plan, God’s grace, God’s initiative, God’s sovereignty, God’s blessings. The law centers on man’s duty, man’s work, man’s responsibility, man’s behavior, man’s obedience. The promise, being grounded in grace, requires only sincere faith. The law, being grounded in works, demands perfect obedience.

In contrasting the covenants of promise and of law, Paul first shows the superiority of the one and then the inferiority of the other.

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE PROMISE

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations; even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. (3:15-18)

Four reasons are given for affirming the superiority of the covenant of promise: its confirmation, its Christ-centeredness, its chronology, and its completeness.

ITS CONFIRMATION

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations; even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. (3:15)

First of all, the covenant of promise was superior because it was confirmed as irrevocable and unchangeable. This can be illustrated by reference to a human covenant. In terms of human relations, Paul says, even . . . a man’s covenant, . . . when it has been ratified, allows no one to set it aside or add conditions to it.

Even human beings hold their covenants to be inviolable and unamendable. Once ratified, they are irrevocable and unchangeable.

Diathk (covenant) is a general term for a binding agreement. It was often used to refer to wills or testaments, and in some Scripture passages the word is best translated with that meaning. A last will and testament expresses the desires and intent of but one party and may or may not involve other specific parties. A covenant, on the other hand, always involves two or more specific parties, although the terms may be stipulated and fulfilled by only one. In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament translated in the third century B.C.) the term is consistently used of God’s covenants with His people—covenants that God alone initiated and established and that sometimes were conditional and sometimes not.

When God made the covenant with Abraham, whose name was then Abram, He promised, ‘“I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great. . . . This man [Eliezer] will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.’ And He took him outside and said, ‘Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. And He said to him, ‘I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it’” (Gen. 15:1, 4-7).

When Abram asked, “O Lord God, how may I know that I shall possess it?” (v. 8), God ratified the covenant by a ceremony common to the ancient Near East. On the Lord’s instructions, Abram took a heifer, a female goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon, then cut them in half and laid the two sides of each animal opposite one another, with a path in between. At sunset, God caused a deep sleep, as well as “terror and great darkness,” to fall on Abram. After reassuring Abram of His promises, the Lord symbolically passed between the animals in the form of “a smoking oven and a flaming torch” (w. 12-17).

Ordinarily, both parties to a covenant would walk between the slain animals, whose blood would symbolically ratify the agreement. But in this case, God alone walked through, indicating that the covenant, though involving promises to Abraham and his descendants, was made by God with Himself. The covenant was unilateral and entirely unconditional, the only obligation being on God Himself.

“If, therefore,” Paul argued, “a man’s covenant, when ratified, cannot be set aside or have conditions added to it, how much less can a covenant God makes with Himself be annulled or modified? Even God’s own covenant with Moses did not nullify or amend His covenant with Abraham, because God had made the former covenant permanent and unchangeable.”

ITS CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. (3:16)

Second, Paul argues from the lesser figure of verse 15 to the greater figure of verse 16, that the covenant of promise was superior to the covenant of law because it was Christ-centered. The immutability of the covenant involving faith directly relates to God’s last and final covenant established through His Son, Jesus Christ. The covenant of law could not possibly have interrupted or modified the previous covenant of promise, because the first one not only was inviolable and permanent in itself but was inseparable from God’s supreme covenant, the New Covenant in the Messiah, the Christ.

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writing of both Genesis and Galatians, Paul exegetes the quoted Genesis passage. The term seed, he declares, is singular in Genesis 22:18. It was therefore not referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed.”

Both the Greek term sperma (seed) and the corresponding Hebrew term (zera) are like the English seed in that they can be either singular or plural. Apart from inspiration by the Holy Spirit, Paul could not have established such a crucial interpretation on the basis of grammar alone. Hebrew grammar, like Greek and English, allows, but does not necessitate, the singular.

In numerous Old Testament passages the term obviously applies to but one person. In Genesis 4:25 (“offspring”) it refers to Seth alone, in Genesis 21:13 (“descendant”) to Ishmael (see 16:11) alone, in 1 Samuel 1:11 (“son”) to Samuel alone, and in 2 Samuel 7:12 (“descendant”) to Solomon (see 12:24) alone. On the basis only of grammar and context, the meaning of seed in Genesis 22:18 could be either singular or plural. But in interpreting His own Word through the apostle, the Holy Spirit makes clear it is singular, referring . . . to one.

In an even earlier promise, a clearly singular use of seed also refers to Christ. To the serpent in the Garden of Eden, God said, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He [singular, referring to “her seed”] shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Gen. 3:15).

The one and only heir of every promise of God is Christ. Every promise given in the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Therefore the only way a person can participate in the promised blessings to Abraham is to be a fellow heir with Christ through faith in Him.

Whether before or after Christ came to earth, salvation has always been provided only through the perfect offering of Christ on the cross. Believers who lived before the cross and never knew any specifics about Jesus were nevertheless forgiven and made right with God by faith in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, whereas believers who live after the cross are saved in looking back to it. When Christ shed His blood, it covered sins on both sides of the cross. The Old Covenant goes to the cross; the New Covenant comes from it. On the one hand faith pointed forward, whereas on the other it points back.

There has never been nor can there ever be salvation apart from the finished work of Christ. The covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in the covenant of Jesus Christ, and therefore the covenant of law, whatever its character and purpose, did not abrogate or modify those two covenants, which really merged into one.

ITS CHRONOLOGY

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. (3:17)

Third, the covenant of promise was superior to the covenant of law because of chronology. The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God. Because the covenant with Abraham was permanent and inviolate, no amount of time could nullify the promise.

The four hundred and thirty years refers to the time elapsed between God’s last statement of the Abrahamic covenant and His giving of the Law to Moses. The Lord repeated the promise to Abraham’s son Isaac (Gen. 26:24) and then to his grandson Jacob (28:15). The Law came 645 years after Abraham, but 215 years later God repeated the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob, exactly four hundred and thirty years prior to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai.

Even the covenant with Abraham did not establish the principle of salvation by faith but only verified and typified it. From the time of Adam’s fall, faith had been the only means of man’s becoming right with God.

As for the promise that God gave as part of the covenant with Abraham and that He Himself had ratified (the verb is a perfect passive participle, pointing to the lasting authority of the ratification), the mere passage of time could have no effect on it all, much less nullify it.

ITS COMPLETENESS

For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. (3:18)

Fourth, the covenant of promise is superior to the covenant of law because it is more complete. Paul’s point is that an inheritance . . . based on law depends on man’s performance, whereas the one granted . . . to Abraham by means of a promise depends on God’s power. The term granted translates the perfect tense of charizomai (to give graciously) and points to the permanent character of the inheritance. The principles behind the two types of inheritance are incompatible. One is by God’s law and man’s works and the other by God’s grace and man’s faith. Not only that, but the abilities to fulfill the covenants are of an infinitely different order. Man cannot succeed in perfectly keeping the law, and God cannot fail in perfectly keeping the promise. Because the covenant of promise is complete, the covenant of law can in no way improve or change it.

By definition, an inheritance is not earned but simply received, and to work for that which is already guaranteed is foolish and unnecessary. Trying to earn the inheritance God promises through faith in His Son is much worse than foolish. To add works of the law to faith in God’s promise is to “nullify the grace of God” and to cause Christ to have “died needlessly” (2:21).

THE INFERIORITY OF THE LAW

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (3:19-22)

After showing the superiority of the covenant of promise, Paul shows the inferiority of the covenant of law—first in regard to its purpose, then in regard to its mediator, and finally in regard to its accomplishment.

ITS PURPOSE

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, (3:19a)

In light of Paul’s convincing argument up to this point, the obvious question would be, Why the Law then? If salvation has always been by faith and never by works, and if the covenant of promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, what purpose did the Law have?

Paul’s answer is direct and sobering: It was added because of transgressions (parabasis, stepping over the boundary). The purpose of the law was to demonstrate to man his total sinfulness, his inability to please God by his own works, and his need for mercy and grace. The Law . . . was added to show the depth of man’s transgressions against God. It was given to drive him to desperate guilt and the awareness of his need for the Deliverer.

As the apostle explains a few verses later, the law was a “tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith” (3:24). The impossible demands of the law were meant to compel men to recognize their violation of God’s standards and to seek His grace through faith in His Son. When a man looks at the law, he sees that his living is more than simply wrong; it is sin, an offense against the holy God, before whom no sinful person can stand. The law shows men their violation of the will of God, who rules the universe and holds them accountable for their sin.

The covenant of law is long past, but the moral demands of the law have not diminished, having neither begun nor ended with the Mosaic covenant. That is why preaching the moral, ethical standards of the law today is still imperative in driving men to Christ. Unless men realize they are living in violation of God’s law and therefore stand under His divine judgment, they will see no reason to be saved. Grace is meaningless to a person who feels no inadequacy or need of help. He sees no purpose in being saved if he does not realize he is lost. He sees no need of forgiveness by God if he does not know he has offended God. He sees no need to seek God’s mercy if he is unaware he is under God’s wrath.

The purpose of the law was, and is, to drive men to despair over their sins and to a desire to receive the salvation that God’s sovereign grace offers to those who believe. The purpose of the law was therefore not wrong, but it was inferior. “The Law is holy,” Paul says, “and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). But the law merely points to what only grace can produce.

ITS MEDIATORS

Having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. (3:19b-20)

Second, the covenant of law was inferior to the covenant of promise because it was ordained (diatass, a technical word for carrying out laws) through angels by the agency of a mediator. God gave the covenant of law through two sets of mediators, first through angels and then by them through Moses to the people.

God was the Author and Giver of the covenant of law, and He was present with Moses on Mt. Sinai when it was given (Ex. 19:18-24). But in a way not fully explained, the law was given by God to Moses through angels (cf. Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2).

When God gave the law, the setting was awesome and forbidding. God warned the people not to come near the fiery mountain, “lest He break forth upon them” (Ex. 19:24). But God gave the covenant to Abraham as Friend to friend (see Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-7; 18:1-33). The promise of salvation by faith was so precious to the heart of God that He gave it to Abraham in person. That is the way God desires to come to every person who will have His Son as Lord and Savior, the seed of Abraham who was to come and to whom the promise had been made.

Moses was great and the angels were great; but they were only mediators. Paul warned the Galatian believers not to exalt Moses or angels over God Himself as the Judaizers were doing.

The Greek text of Galatians 3:20 is difficult to translate and interpret, but Paul seems to be pointing out that a mediator (literally one who stands between two parties) is needed only when more than one party is involved. God gave the covenant directly to Abraham without a mediator because He was the only one involved in making the covenant. Abraham was a witness to the covenant and was a beneficiary, but he was not a party to it. Abraham had no part in establishing or keeping the covenant. That responsibility was God’s alone.

The covenant of law, however, not only involved mediators (angels and Moses) but mutual obligations on the two parties (God and Israel). The stipulation of that covenant was, “You shall walk in all the way which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live” (Deut. 5:33). Man’s part was to obey and God’s was to give life, to save. The problem was that man could not keep His part, and therefore God could not grant salvation.

ITS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (3:21-22)

Finally, the covenant of law was inferior to the covenant of promise because of its accomplishments.

Again anticipating his readers’ likely response, Paul asks rhetorically, Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? The preposition kata (contrary to) seems better rendered “against” (KJV) or “opposed to” (NIV). God gave both the promise and the law, and He does not work against Himself.

As with other such questions (see 2:17; Rom. 6:1-2; 7:13), Paul immediately gives the strong negative answer himself: May it never be! The idea was unthinkable.

For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. In other words, the Law was inferior because it could not save, it was not able to impart life. If it could have done so, it would have been against and contrary to the promises of God, because it would have provided an alternate and conflicting way of salvation. It would have made the death of Christ tragically unnecessary (2:21). God’s grace, Christ’s sacrifice, and man’s faith would be superfluous, or at best, an optional means of salvation.

But that is not the case, because the Scripture, through the law, has shut up all men under sin. The phrase shut up translates sunklei, a strong term meaning to lock up securely, to enclose on all sides with no way of escape. “I was once alive apart from the Law,” Paul said; “but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died” (Rom. 7:9), because the covenant with Moses brought “the law of sin and of death” (8:2). Not until a person smashes himself against the demands of the law and the accusations of conscience does he recognize his helplessness and see his need for a Savior. Not until the law has arrested and imprisoned him and sentenced him to death will he be driven to despair in himself and turn to Jesus Christ.

The ultimate purpose of shutting up men under sin and death was that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. The law was given to bring men under sin to the point of saying, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24). Grace is given to enable those who believe to say, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (v. 25). God’s saving purpose is the climax (cf. Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15).