06-The second paragraph from Galatians
The second paragraph from Galatians (being the whole of chapter 3) The second passage from ‘Galatians’ follows immediately after the first. It opens with an appeal to actual experience. The Galatian Church enjoyed the gift of the Holy Spirit. The question is, how did they get it? To this there could be but one answer. They had only to question themselves, in sincerity and honesty, and they would gratefully acknowledge it had not come by ‘law.’ And the Spirit is, of course, the seal of God’s acceptance. But here is what the Apostle says:
(3:1.) “O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Why, before your very eyes Jesus Christ was plainly writ, as crucified.” In this verse the opening metaphor is drawn from the ‘evil eye.’ They must have been ‘Overlooked’ (as peasants say in the West). Nothing else would account for it. Lightfoot avers that προεγράφη contains no idea of ‘painting’: it simply means ‘posted up,’ ‘placarded.’ The ἐν ὑμῖν is rejected by modern editors. Notwithstanding it is possible. It may be intended to reiterate the vividness with which the crucifixion was presented. The πρό of προεγράφη means, I think, merely ‘plainly,’ as in προλέγειν.
(3:2-6.) “This only would I learn of you. Did the gift of the Spirit come from doing what Law bade, or from believing what you were told? Are you as foolish as all that? Having started in the Spirit, are you now seeking fulfilment in the flesh? Have all your experiences gone for nothing-if indeed they have gone for nothing? He that ministers to you the Spirit, I ask again, and makes mighty powers to work amongst you, (does He it) because you do what Law commands, or because you hear and believe? As Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.”1 [Note: Genesis 15:6] The paraphrase here given sets forth what I think to be the Apostolic meaning. The gift of the Holy Spirit (to begin with) is, in the Apostle’s thought, and in the minds of his readers, a fact entirely beyond dispute. They actually possessed this high endowment, with all its visible and palpable accompaniments. The only question is the question the Apostle puts: how did it come? In the latter part of v. 2 we have two balancing clauses, which are not exactly parallel. The former of them is plain enough as to its meaning, the latter much more intangible. That ἐξ ἔργων νόμου means “by doing the various things Law bids,” I should say, none would dispute. Ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως is plainly a harder phrase. But, seeing that πίστεως is obviously the more important member of what is in effect a compound noun (after the Teutonic model), we cannot be wrong in rendering, either “from believing hearing,” or “from believing what you were told.” The latter I myself prefer. It is the repetition of the phrase below (v. 5), in immediate connexion with the mention of Abraham’s ‘belief,’ that makes this rendering likely. Verse 3 contains one of those curious passive uses, which are regarded as ‘quasi-middle.’ “Having started in the ‘spirit,’ are you seeking completion (ἐπιτελεῖσθε) in the ‘flesh’?” Here I should say that the so-called ‘middle’ force is really due to the ‘tentative’ character, which often attaches to the ‘present stem’ tenses in Greek. An old scholar might have rendered it “are you for being completed?” The two datives πνεύματι and σαρκί are very baffling for the translator. For all intents and purposes they are equivalent to adverbs; but we have no English adverbs that could serve as equivalents. Verse 4 is ambiguous. It may refer to persecution; “have you suffered all you have suffered” (which would recall such passages as Acts 14:1-2, and-even more particularly- Acts 14:22; where St Paul and Barnabas expressly warn the converts of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, that we must “enter into God’s Kingdom διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων”); or it may be of broader reference, recalling all that methodists would denominate ‘experience.’ This I conceive to be the likelier. The adverb which closes the verse plainly means ‘without effect,’ that is, ‘without being the better, the more faithful, for it all.’ It is odd that the Vulgate should say ‘si tamen,’ Instead of ‘si quidem.’ Verse 5 merely reproduces the old question in a new form. The οὖν is, of course, ‘resumptive.’ The ἐπί of ἐπιχορηγεῖν is probably not ‘intensive,’ but merely employed because later Greek preferred the compound to the simple verb χορηγεῖν. Ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν is doubly ambiguous. Δυνάμεις may be ‘miraculous powers,’ or actual ‘miracles’: ἐν ὑμῖν may be ‘among you,’ or actually ‘in you.’ It is difficult to be sure, in either case. For the rest, the question’s answer is so inevitable, that it is not stated at all. We have to supply it. For writer and for reader, it ‘goes without saying.’ ‘For our believing’ is, of course, the answer; as Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. The quotation from Genesis 15:6 (the ‘LXX’ of that passage) is not developed here, as it is in Romans 4. The student cannot decide, how far the writer read into the words of the ancient Greek the technical sense he himself generally attributes to the term for ‘righteousness.’ The Hebrew (I should apprehend) means only “God accounted it as a thing well and rightly done”; ‘righteousness’ being little more than ‘a righteous act.’ Anyhow, in Abraham’s case, belief it was pleased God, and won acceptance with Him. The particular ‘belief’ in question was the belief in the promised ‘seed’ (tell the stars, if thou shalt be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be). The passage continues:
3:7-9. “You can see then, that the men of faith-they are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, seeing beforehand that it is by faith God means to ‘justify’ the Gentiles, had promised before to Abraham, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. Accordingly it is the men of faith who are blessed with faithful Abraham.” The opening verb in v. 7 is an appeal to the reader’s good sense. Unquestioning belief constitutes, beyond a doubt, that trait in the Patriarch, which commended him to God, beyond all other men. It is a fair deduction from this, that a like attitude in ourselves will produce a like result. At least that is how the writer appears to put it (γινώσκετε ἄρα). The ‘Scripture’ of v. 8 is an earlier passage in Genesis, in fact the primal promise made to Abraham at his call (Genesis 12:3). The δικαιοῖ either expresses the wont of the Almighty-the way He habitually deals-or else must be regarded (with Lightfoot) as ‘prophetic.’ This is how I have taken it. About the ‘pluperfect’ rendering of προευηγγελίσατο, I don’t feel certain. Possibly however it is safer. The personification of ‘the Scripture’ is singular and unique. It was God, to be sure, who made the promise to Abraham, and not ‘the Scripture’ at all. That only records it for us. If we were expressing it in words of our own, we should put it something like this. We should say: “And, seeing it was God’s intent to justify the heathen through faith, the Scripture tells us how God had made promise before to Abraham, saying.…” In the conclusion of v. 8 St Paul (as his manner is) takes the ancient Greek translation of O.T. in the sense it naturally bears (as read in Greek) for one not conversant with the Hebrew text. It is true that he does not quote LXX exactly, but it is only the change of a word (ἔθνη for φυλαί).
It is hardly necessary (and indeed is inadvisable) to postulate the ‘fusion’ of Genesis 12:3 with Genesis 18:18, to account for the change of noun. The context in fact demands an earlier citation than one in chap. 15. Therefore the Apostle is plainly citing Gen. 12 from memory. Stress is laid on the sense of the Greek, because it would appear that the Hebrew means something other. The words in Genesis 48:20 (In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh) seem to make it fairly clear that “In thee shall the nations bless themselves” must be taken as merely meaning ‘the nations shall pray that they may be as happy as you.’ However (as I have said) the Apostle took the LXX as he found it, and expounded it as it stood. How it ever came to pass that the LXX should be the ‘O.T.’ of Gamaliel’s pupil is one of the strangest problems that faces the ‘N.T.’ student. But so it certainly is. Can it be that he laid aside the Hebrew for the Greek, from the day when he knew himself the Apostle of the Gentiles? The importance of the change from the one version to the other it is hard to overestimate. Indeed have we, Christian students, sufficiently realised yet what it means for us, that the Christian ‘O.T.’ is the Version of Alexandria, and not the Hebrew at all-just because it is the version of all the N.T. writers, broadly speaking; unmistakeably of St Paul? In any case it is plain that the Greek of Genesis 12:3 (as we have it and St Paul had it) must inevitably mean, “Through thee shall all the nations be blessed.” It is the Scripture, interpreted so, that solely meets the facts of the Christian revelation. I should say that in this place (as in several others) the later wisdom of Israel was actually ‘guided’ in the interpretation it set on primitive Scripture. In so far the LXX becomes, not only the ‘Christian’ version, but actually the ‘better’ version, as containing the latest light vouchsafed to Israel. We are here faced with a dilemma which I do not intend to state. The thoughtful ‘N.T.’ reader will discern it for himself.
Another point should be mentioned before we pass on further. It is this. The genius of our language (and this is clearly seen from the study of A.V.) dislikes persistently employing one family of words to set forth one family of ideas. For instance, πιστεύειν and πίστις occur several times, each of them, in the course of this section. But we in rendering, are forced to ‘ring the changes’ between ‘belief’ and ‘faith.’ You may say ‘the men of belief’ or ‘the men of faith’-whichever you will. One thing only you may not do. You may not render πίστις, wherever it may occur, consistently by either. Sometimes it must be ‘faith,’ sometimes ‘belief.’ It must be neither all the time. Being very sure of this, I have varied the rendering in my own paraphrase. Of course one might say “And so the men of belief share the blessing of believing Abraham.” But it would only be pedantic, and mistaken pedantry too. At this point in the argument a new idea is introduced. ‘Blessing’ suggests its antithesis, and the Apostle passes on to argue that so far from being a source of ‘blessing,’ the Law is a source of ‘curse’ and condemnation.
3:10-12. “Why, all that are of the school of legal doings are under a curse. For it stands written, Accursed is everyone that abideth not in all the things that are written in the Book of the Law for to do them.”
“And that by Law no man is righted in the eyes of God is plain: because The just shall live by faith. Whereas the Law is not matter of faith, but, He that achieveth the commands shall live by them.”1 [Note: Leviticus 18:5] The opening clause of v. 10 is rendered by Lightfoot, ‘those who are of works of law.’ It is not a perspicuous phrase. The meaning clearly is, ‘the whole tribe, or fellowship, of “doers.” The ‘circumcision party’ are described in Acts 11:2 by a similar periphrasis. The quotation in the same verse is a somewhat free citation, LXX in character, of Deuteronomy 27:26, the final sentence of ‘cursing’ from Mount Ebal. The πᾶς and πᾶσι of the Greek are not represented in Hebrew, though our Authorised Version inserts an ‘all’ before the “words of this law.” The quotation in v. 11 is a very notable one. It comes (as everyone knows) from Habakkuk 2:4, where again in our English Version the citation by St Paul has influenced the rendering. In Hebrew, strictly speaking, there is no word for ‘faith’ (in any N.T. sense). The πίστις of LXX stands for ‘loyalty’ or ‘stedfastness,’ rather than ‘faith’: but St Paul avails himself here of the double meaning. What the prophet is declaring amounts to this: in an era of disaster the ‘faithful,’ or ‘loyal,’ among Israel shall not perish. In fact it is the doctrine of the ‘remnant’ stated in another form. The same citation is found in Romans 1, employed as it is here. In Hebrews 10:38, it is found in full LXX form, and further is interpreted in accordance with the original sense, as ‘loyalty’ or ‘stedfastness’ and not as the theological virtue. Πίστις (it should be added) occurs often in LXX, but always in the sense of ‘faithfulness.’ Bishop Lightfoot observes, in this connexion, that the Apostle gives the prophetic words ‘a spiritual meaning and a general application.’ He applies them to ‘moral’ ruin, not ‘material’; and avers that ‘stedfast loyalty’ shall not fail of its reward. However, the modern reader can hardly fail to be conscious of something of discomfort, in view of the sense attached by St Paul to Habakkuk’s words. ‘Faith’ (in the Pauline sense) and ‘faithfulness to God’ (which is what the Prophet had in mind), in the long run, are the same thing. But the Western mind would shrink from identifying them for purposes of argument. ‘Law’ and ‘Faith’ are far apart; but ‘Law’ and ‘Loyalty’ are not so disconnected. For loyalty is revealed in prompt and ready obedience. Howbeit in this passage the Pauline antithesis is not developed, and the Habakkuk citation is not of vital moment for the argument. ‘Law’ lands its votaries finally in ‘cursing’ rather than ‘blessing,’ because only perfect ‘obedience’ can satisfy its claims; and ‘perfect obedience’ is (or, at any rate, then was) impossible for man. Accordingly vv. 11 and 12 might well be set in a bracket, as parenthetical.
3:13, 14. “Christ it was redeemed us from the curse that Law involves, by becoming for us a ‘curse’ (for it is written, Accursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree1 [Note: Deuteronomy 21:23.] ); that the blessing of Abraham might in Christ Jesus extend to the Gentiles; to the end we might be given the promise of the Spirit, through faith.”
It will be seen we have ‘worked back’ to the question which was asked in v. 2 above. The ‘Promise of the Spirit’ is identified with Abraham’s ‘blessing’ (the ‘blessing’ promised in Gen. 12). Probably in the phrase “the promise of the Spirit,” the ‘promise’ is meant to be, not the promise made by Christ on earth, but the promise made to Abraham. The ‘Spirit,’ in short, is the ‘promise’; is its splendid realisation delayed till the time of Christ. The verb ‘redeem’ (ἐξαγοράζειν) here employed occurs only once in LXX, in the curious phrase of Daniel 2:8, καιρὸν … ἐξαγοράζειν. ‘To become a curse’ is, in English, by no means so intelligible as it is in the language of Israel. A person exceptionally ill-starred might call himself a ‘curse,’ as Anna (the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary) does in an Apocryphal Gospel cited by Lightfoot. For ‘sin’ and for ‘sin offering’ there is but one word in Hebrew. In relation to the statement here used of Christ, one recalls the ‘scapegoat’ (and its heathen analogies, the φαρμακοί at Athens, or the victims in ancient Egypt whereof Herodotus speaks). In 2 Corinthians 5:21 it is said of Christ, “Him that knew not sin on our behalf, He made sin.” That is even stranger than this “becoming a curse.” In the citation from Deuteronomy the Apostle alters the phrase in the LXX text ‘κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ’ (which he could not have anyhow used, as hardly with reverence to be applied to Christ-even in view of Psalm 22) into the simple ἐπικατάρατος, which brings it into line with the quotation of v. 10. For myself, I cannot see how we can extrude from the passage before us the thought of ‘vicarious suffering.’ Christ ‘redeems’ us by ‘becoming a curse’-that is by taking on Himself the penalty involved in the failure to achieve the claims of God’s Holiness.
It is always difficult, when following Pauline argument, to be certain as to what is essential in the course of the reasoning and what unessential. At first sight one is tempted to say, in considering this passage, that the introduction of the thought of the ‘curse,’ which Law entails, interrupts the sequence of thought. ‘How did you get the Spirit? it came to you by faith, as Abraham’s blessing came to him. Your blessing had to come in the self-same manner; for so is the way of God in dealing with men.’ This might seem to us to be the essential argument. But it is not. It leaves out Christ. It is not by ‘faith,’ pure and simple, that men are ‘saved’ at all, according to the Apostle; but ‘by faith in Jesus Christ.’ For centuries before He came men had been striving to ‘right themselves’ by scrupulous obedience. But this was a hopeless task. They rested evermore beneath the shadow of Ebal and its doom. Over everyone there hovered, be he never so careful in ‘doing,’ the shadow of dismal failure-the ‘curse’ that is linked with Law. Christ it was who dispelled the shadow. He did something: He bore something: He ‘became’ something. The ‘curse’ (we cannot fathom how) He somehow transferred to Himself. He was the ‘scapegoat’ of mankind. I do not see myself (I say again) how we can avoid the conclusion that His death, in the Apostle’s thought, made life possible for our race. Till then (one is led to infer) ‘faith’ itself was ineffectual. But, with that life once lived, that death once died, faith received her proper object, and the blessing-the long-promised blessing-could descend on man. On the readers it had descended, the seal of their acceptance. And-it had come by ‘faith.’
3:15-18. “My brothers, take a human analogy! A man’s will, though it be but a man’s, when once ratified, none sets aside or alters by addition.”
“To Abraham were the promises spoken and to his seed. It says not and to his seeds, as if there had been many, but as in the case of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
“But what I am saying is this. A covenant ratified of old by God, the Law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, does not cancel, so as to do away with the Promise.”
“For if the inheritance comes by Law, it does not come by promise. But to Abraham God’s free giving is by promise.” In this passage the Apostle is haunted by the ever present Judaic contention that it is the Law that matters. Mark how it begins with ‘man,’ and ends with God (κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός). No doubt there is involved in this the force of an ‘a fortiori.’ If man’s διαθήκη stands, what shall we say of God’s? The curiously placed ὅμως is exactly illustrated by 1 Corinthians 14:7. With regard to διαθήκη, two things must be observed. The first is that with St Paul the διαθήκη in question is the pre-Mosaic ‘Covenant’; the other, that he avails himself of the double sense of διαθήκη-the regular (but not universal) ‘classical’ sense of ‘will,’ and the regular LXX sense of ‘covenant.’ In spite of all contention to the contrary, we cannot blink the fact that all through O.T. Scripture ‘covenant’ is διαθήκη in Greek-a word very likely used of deliberate intent, because God’s ‘covenant’ is not a set agreement between two contracting parties, but a gracious purpose of God, offered to man upon conditions. That is, it is a ‘disposition’ but not a ‘testament.’ In Hebrews 9:15-17 we have the famous ‘amphiboly,’ wherein it would seem the writer uses διαθήκη in both senses. That same ‘amphiboly’ is here. Ἀνθρώπου διαθήκη must be a ‘will’-so much is shown by the technical term ἐπιδιατάσσεται; for ἐπιδιαθήκη means an ‘amended will’ or ‘codicil’: but the διαθήκη of God is obviously other. The idea of ‘testamentary disposition’ is wholly impossible in such a connexion. A human will is ‘ratified’ when duly sealed: and further (it would seem to be implied) when the man who made it is dead. The Covenant of God is ratified by His own gracious declaration, and ‘sealed,’ on the human side (for there is a human side), by the God-appointed symbol. The εἰς Χριστόν (of v. 17), which I have omitted with the editors, might be interpreted as due to what v. 16 says. It would have to be translated either as ‘pointing to Christ,’ or ‘till Christ should come.’ The latter sense is supported by v. 19 below (ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα). Awkward as εἰς Χριστόν is, it is worth while to observe that only by keeping it can we account for the curious v. 16. That verse contains a citation from Genesis 13:5 (“all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed for ever”). Remark that this citation is unmistakeably LXX. The Greek σπέρμα has a plural; the Hebrew word has none. The argument of St Paul (which does not appear to us precisely convincing) depends on the possibility of substituting σπέρμασιν. Moreover, note this further, that, though the actual citation is as stated; the importance of the identification is intimately associated with the memory of that other word, “and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” That passage must have been, at the moment of writing, in the back of the Apostle’s mind. In v. 18 we should note the exceeding advantage Greek has in the flexibility, which allows the omission of a verb. We, in English, have to choose between ‘was’ and ‘is.’ It is far better to have neither. The latter part of οὐκέτι is due to Greek idiom: we need not, indeed we must not, say ‘no longer.’ The κεχάρισται of v. 18 recalls the famous χάρισμα in Romans. Unhappily English possesses no verb that completely corresponds. In vv. 19, 20 we come to close grip with the question, ‘Then how about the Law?’
Here is the Apostle’s answer. He demonstrates that the Law had a reason; that it was only temporary; and that it was palpably inferior, as being ‘mediated’-and all this in the compass of a single verse.
3:19, 20. “To what end then served the Law? It was an addition made for transgressions’ sake, till such time as the seed should come, for whom the Promise is; appointed in the presence of angels by the hand of an intermediary. Now God is One; and the very idea of one excludes an intermediary.”
Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; is not to be regarded as parallel to 1 Corinthians 3:5 (“what then is Apollos?”) The τί is probably accusative (“What then did the Law?”) The words that follow set forth the ‘Law,’ as a sort of ‘afterthought’ (προσετέθη)-no part of the original purpose. Τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν is explained by statements in Romans. Law’s purpose (according to St Paul) is not to ‘check’ sin, but to ‘define’ it-in effect, as he says, to ‘create’ it. (See Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7.) Ἐπήγγελται appears to be ‘impersonal passive.’ The tense points to the record of Scripture, which stands as long as earth stands. The mention of ‘angels’ in connexion with the giving of the Law is probably post-canonical. There is a possible reference in Deuteronomy 33:2, but not in the LXX text. In Acts 7:53 the ‘angels’ are spoken of as enhancing Law’s dignity: here (as more decisively in Hebrews 2:2) the angels depreciate Law, as moving God farther off: they are suggestive of ‘intermediaries.’ Ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου is difficult of rendering: it means really “worked by a mediator.” But that one could hardly say. In the LXX, we may add, this special formula is actually consecrated to this connexion (see Numb. 4:37).
About v. 20 commentators have been amazingly at variance. Lightfoot declares its interpretations mount to 250 or 300 in number. The conciseness of the Greek and the lack of definite outline which appertains to the genitive, constitute between them the difficulty. The free paraphrase given above expresses what I believe to be its meaning. There appears to be an antithesis between the ‘mediate’ character of the Mosaic ‘covenant’ and the wholly ‘immediate’ nature (as coming direct from God) of the Abrahamic ‘Promise.’ At least, so I should hold. The Apostle has now explained how the Law came into being. For the sake of greater precision, and to avoid all misunderstanding, he asks yet another question:
3:21. “Does then the Law conflict with the promises of God? God forbid it should do so! If a Law had been given, that could bring real life, then truly ‘acceptance with God’ would have been by Law. But”-(so far is this from being so)-“the Scripture has made all the prisoners of Sin, that the promise might be given to believers, thanks to faith in Jesus Christ.” The ‘promises’ of God, mentioned in v. 21, are all summed up in one Promise (as we see below). Maybe the plural is here used because the one Promise is made more times than once. Ζωοποιῆσαι suggests a virtual state of death. Ἡ δικαιοσύνη may mean ‘the righteousness we have in view,’ or merely ‘righteousness.’ The singular figure συνέκλεισεν comes once again in Romans, in a somewhat similar phrase (11:32). Τὰ πάντα is noticeable. St Paul uses the neuter plural to make what he wishes to say as comprehensive as possible. He is thinking of people, of course, in spite of the gender. ‘The Scripture,’ one inclines to think, must be a Scripture already cited. If so, it clearly must be that quoted in v. 10. Apart from that necessity, other Scriptures would have suited, such as Psalms 114:3, or Psalms 144:3 (which latter has been quoted in 2:16). The ‘promise’ is the Spirit, God’s gift to believers, consequent on faith in Jesus Christ.
3:23-27. “Before faith came, we were kept safe under Law, fast prisoners till the faith should come, that was going to be revealed. Accordingly the Law was our ‘tutor,’ till Christ came, that we might be set right with God in consequence of faith. Since faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Aye, you are all Sons of God, through faith, in Jesus Christ. For all of you that have been baptised in Christ have put on Christ.” The ἐφρουρούμεθα of v. 23 suggests zealous watch and ward: the perfect συγκεκλεισμένοι is preferable, I should say, to the present participle, in spite of MS. authority. The εἰς is plainly ‘temporal,’ as in several other places. The order of the words, at the end of 22, is thoroughly ‘classical.’ In v. 24 the γέγονεν is one of the ‘irrational’ perfects we sometimes find in the case of that particular verb. We must translate it as though it were an aorist, not a perfect. The figure of the παιδαγωγός developes, and further softens, the metaphor of ἐφρουρούμεθα. The Law may have had a tight grip, and held its prisoners fast, but its purpose was a loving one. The mention of the παιδαγωγός (seeing what the functions were of such a confidential slave) makes εἰς Χριστοῦ rather tempting. Yet εἰς Χριστόν is right. With the latter we must assume a temporal sense. God’s ‘Sons’ (a term of privilege) are beyond all slavish restraint. In vv. 26 and 27 two questions suggest themselves with regard to the prepositions. Is it “sons of God … in Christ Jesus”? or is the genesis of that ‘sonship’ described in its twofold aspect, as brought about by faith, but resting on union with Christ? I incline to the latter belief. Again, in v. 27, does it mean “all ye that were baptised in Christ,” or “baptised into Christ” (which indeed is no true English, but a clumsy way of representing what is called a ‘pregnant’ sense)? I believe ‘to baptise in Christ’ means to ‘baptise in the name of Christ’-in which case εἰς is used. Anyhow, the ‘sonship of God’ is due to union with Christ, here described by the bold figure “have put on Christ.”
3:28, 29. “There is there no Jew nor Gentile; no bond nor free; no ‘male and female.’ Ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise.”
Lightfoot’s comments on v. 28 are highly illuminating. The ἔνι, he observes, ‘negatives not the fact but the possibility’; and again, ‘all distinctions are swept away, even the primal one of sex’ (male and female created He them). For the masculine singular εἷς, see Ephesians 2:15. In v. 29 we see that it is the ‘vital union,’ obtaining between Christ and believers, that constitutes them the ‘seed’ of the patriarch Abraham. Strictly speaking, Christ is the seed, as in v. 16 above. But they that are Χριστοῦ (which may mean ‘members of Christ’) are necessarily ‘seed’ too, and as such inherit the promise.