Galatians 3

Galatians 3:1

1. ὦἀνόητοι, Galatians 3:3. The term is suggested by the logical argument of Gal 2:14-21. The mixture of Judaism with faith in Christ was there shown to be irrational. The Galatians ought to have had enough mental ability to see this of themselves.

Γαλάται. The personal appeal by name occurs in St Paul’s writings elsewhere only in 2 Corinthians 6:11; Philippians 4:15; 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:20, in all of which it is not due to indignation, but (certainly in 1 Tim. and probably in the other two passages) to deep emotion. Yet in none does a reproachful adjective precede, so that they are not quite like our passage, where the context suggests a holy indignation rather than extreme tenderness of affection.

On the word “Galatians” see Introd. passim.

τίςὑμᾶςἐβάσκανεν; “who hath bewitched you?” For the form of argument see Galatians 5:7. The aorist is timeless, idiomatically translated by our perfect. βασκαίνω and its derivatives here only in the N.T. In the O.T. generally of “envy” or “grudging,” e.g. Deuteronomy 28:54; Proverbs 23:6, and even Sir 14:6-8. But in Wis 4:12 “bewitching” in a metaphorical sense. Here also “bewitch” or “overlook” is intended, the allusion being to the “evil eye” (“fascinavit,” Vulg.) of folk-lore in perhaps all parts of the world, especially Babylon and Syria.

See further in Jewish Encyc. 3:280 and Lightfoot. Compare ἀβάσκαντος in the formula of greeting in the papyri = may all mischief be kept far from thee. This adjective occurs as a proper name, or rather by-name, in an inscription found some twenty miles south of Lystra in 1909, and an additional argument for the South Galatian theory has been drawn from this fact, which, in view of the widespread character of the superstition, can hardly be maintained. If there is any notion of “envy” or “grudging” in our verse it is quite subordinate, for the following clause refers to the popular superstition. S. Seligmann’s Der böse Blick has just appeared (Dec. 1909).

οἷςκατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺςἸησοῦςΧριστὸςπροεγράφη. (i) In Romans 15:4; Ephesians 3:3 προγράφειν means “to write beforehand,” and so even in Jude 1:4[88] (of ungodly men written down beforehand in the Divine tablets or perhaps in the Book of Enoch quoted by Jude, Galatians 3:14-15). So perhaps here, written beforehand either by the Prophets, or (though very improbably) by an earlier letter received by the Galatians from St Paul or others.

[88] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

(ii) But the meaning of publicity is better.

(a) προγράφειν “is the common word to describe all public notices or proclamations, e.g. Arist. Av. 450 ὅτιἃνπρογράφωμενἐντοῖςπινακίοις,” sometimes of a trial or condemnation; cf. Demosth. p. 1151 τοὺςπρυτάνειςπρογράφειναὐτῷτὴνκρίσινἐπὶδύοἡμέρας, Plut. Camill. 9 τῆςδίκηςπρογεγραμμένης (see Lightfoot). In this case the metaphor is that the name of Jesus Christ has been officially posted up as of one crucified.

(b) Even this, however, hardly satisfies the thought suggested by the preceding words. Although there seems to be no example of προγράφειν actually meaning “paint,” or “depict,” yet this connotation, as often with our “placard,” would suit admirably. So Pesh. quasi pingendo depictus erat; Philox. prius depictus est, and so Chrys., “who enlarges eloquently upon the several details of the picture: ὃνεἷδονὑπὲραὐτῶνγυμνωθέντα, ἀνεσκολοπισμένον, προσηλωμένον, ἐμπτυόμενον, κωμῳδούμενον, ποτιζόμενονὄξος, κατηγορούμενονὑπὸλῃστῶν, λόγχῃνυττόμενονταῦταγὰρπάνταἐδήλωσεδιὰτοῦεἰπεῖν, προεγράφηἐνὑμῖνἐσταυρωμένος” (Field, Notes on N.T.). As the open red hand (still often seen on Syrian houses) wards off the evil eye, so ought this placard of Christ to have warded off for you the “fascination” of these false teachers.

ἐσταυρωμένος. See notes on textual criticism. Predicate 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:2. Contrast Matthew 28:5. Why did He die if you were to go back to the Law (Galatians 2:21)?

Galatians 3:2

2. μαθεῖν. Luther insists on its strongest meaning, “Go to now, answer me, I pray you, which am your scholar (for ye are so suddenly become Doctors, that ye are my masters and teachers)” (p. 98b). But doubtless the weak sense of “be informed,” Acts 23:27, is right. The tense is punctiliar, “ascertain,” as in Acts and frequently in the papyri (Moulton, Proleg., 1906, p. 117).

ἐξἔργωννόμου, Galatians 2:16, note. This was impossible, because you were heathen.

τὸπνεῦμαἐλάβετε. They knew this partly by the miracles that took place, Galatians 3:5. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place so generally that the coincidence of Act 13:52 proves little for the South Galatian theory. Bp Chase thinks this refers to confirmation (Confirmation in the Apostolic Age, pp. 85 sqq.).

ἢἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως, Galatians 3:5, cf. Romans 10:17; also 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:2. ἀκοή here is not passive, “the message which treats of faith” (cf. Matthew 4:24; John 12:38, a quotation, and probably Hebrews 4:2), but active, the power and exercise of hearing (1 Corinthians 12:17; 2 Timothy 4:3; 2 Peter 2:8). πίστεως is appended almost as an epithet, “hearing marked by faith.” Thus the phrase is doubly contrasted with ἐξἔργωννόμου, ἀκοή with ἔργα, and πίστις with νόμος. “Exquisite sic denotatur natura fidei, non operantis, sed recipients” (Beng.). Faith is receptive, works productive.

So Luther, “The Law never bringeth the Holy Ghost, but only teacheth what we ought to do: therefore it justifieth not. But the Gospel bringeth the Holy Ghost, because it teacheth what we ought to receive.… Now, to exact and to give, to take and to offer are things contrary, and cannot stand together.… Therefore if the Gospel be a gift, it requireth nothing. Contrariwise, the law giveth nothing, but it requireth and straightly exacteth of us, yea even impossible things” (p. 102a).

Galatians 3:3

3. οὕτως (tam Hebrews 12:21). ἀνόητοι (Galatians 3:1). ἐναρξάμενοι, Philippians 1:6[89]. Frequent in LXX. and Polybius. It is a more formal term than ἄρχομαι, “having made a beginning,” cf. 1Ma 9:54. ἐπιτελεῖν is joined with it also in Philippians 1:6, and with προεν. in 2 Corinthians 8:6. Both are naturally sometimes used of religions rites, but this usage is not found in the above passages, and does not seem to be probable here.

[89] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

πνεύματι, “by (the) spirit.” See Appendix, note F.

νῦνσαρκὶ. This does not mean that St Paul granted that there was any spiritual growth by means of circumcision, nor does it imply that this was all that the false teachers meant, as though they said that it was necessary for the higher stages of the Christian life; but it is St Paul’s way of expressing his reductio ad absurdum. Begin by the spirit, and bringing things to completion by the flesh! In Galatians 5:2 he states plainly enough that circumcision for them would be to lose all profit in Christ.

ἐπιτελεῖσθε. In the N.T. eight times in the active voice, but here probably in the middle, corresponding to ἐναρξ., as even in 1 Peter 5:9[90]. “Are ye now making an end by (the) flesh?” So the Peshito.

[90] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

Galatians 3:4

4. He has spoken of their past experience of spiritual blessings; now he appeals to their past sufferings.

τοσαῦταἐπάθετε. τος., “so many”; cf. 4Ma 16:4 τοσαῦτακαὶτηλικαῦταπάθη. The frequency of the persecutions rather than their severity. They came not from the Judaizing Christians (for we have no hint that they persecuted in the ordinary sense of the word) but from Jews. No information of these troubles has come down to us. The notices of Act 14:2; Acts 14:5; Acts 14:22 refer to South Galatians.

εἰκῇ (“without due result,” Galatians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 15:2. If you fall away).

εἴγεκαὶεἰκῇ, 2 Corinthians 5:3. He cannot give up hope.

Galatians 3:5

5. Here he appeals to their present experience. For “frequently abstract teaching may be verified by reference to our own spiritual life” (Beet).

οὖν. In logical deduction from Galatians 3:2. If the past showed that spiritual blessings came through faith, I argue that the present teaches the same lesson.

ὁ … ἐπιχορηγῶν (Colossians 2:19 note). ἐνεργῶν (supra Galatians 2:8).

δυνάμεις, i.e. miracles, 1 Corinthians 12:10.

ἐνὑμῖν. They saw them. We are told of earlier miracles among the South Galatians at Iconium, Acts 14:3, and Lystra, Acts 14:9-10, where observe πίστιντοῦσωθῆναι.

Galatians 3:6

6. This verse serves both as an answer to St Paul’s question in Galatians 3:5—yes, it was by faith—and also as a transition to the next important paragraph showing the same truth from Scripture. Marcion omitted Galatians 3:6-9 (see Jerome here) in accordance with his opposition to the Old Testament.

καθὼςἈβραὰμἐπίστευσεντῷθεῷ, καὶἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην. From Genesis 15:6. So verbally in the LXX. A, D (B non est). In Romans 4:3; James 2:23 the only difference is ἐπίστευσενδὲἈβραάμ. In Romans 4:9 only the second half is quoted, ἐλογίσθητῳἈβραὰμἡπίστιςεἰςδικαιοσύνην, and this is again used in Galatians 3:22-23.

The Judaizers were doubtless urging the Gentile Christians to be circumcised as Abraham was. St Paul shows, on the contrary, that he, the great forefather of the Jews, obtained his righteousness not by circumcision and works, but by faith. “The right state of mind is declared to be in God’s sight equivalent to the right action” (Mayor on James 2:23). Observe, however, that in St Paul’s usage faith does not take the place of the Law in the sense that it, in itself, is the ground of confidence. On the contrary, faith is only the hand that lays hold on Christ. On the Jewish estimation of Abraham see Sanday-Headlam on Romans 4:3-8.

Galatians 3:7

7. γινώσκετεἄρα, “ye perceive then.” γιν., almost certainly indicative, for the imperative never occurs in the N.T. with ἄρα, and only once with ἄραοὖν, 2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:6.They could perceive the following truth of the all-importance of faith, and their consequent relation to Abraham, from the preceding argument clinched by Galatians 3:6.

ὅτιοἱἐκπίστεως. Probably this phrase = those who take their start in religion from faith (cf. οἱἐξἐριθίας, Romans 2:8), according to the tenor of the preceding verses. Thus it is not the opposite of οἱἐκπεριτομῆς, which seems always to mean men of Jewish origin by birth, Galatians 2:12; Acts 10:45; Acts 11:2; Romans 4:12; Colossians 4:11, and οἱἐκτῆςπ., Titus 1:10[91]. Its true antitheses are οἱἐκνόμου, Romans 4:14; Romans cf.16[92] (not οἱὑπὸνόμον, infra Galatians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 9:20 bis, which = observant Jews) and ὅσοιἐξἔργωννόμουεἰσίν, Galatians 3:10[93]. There is no need to understand υἱοὶὄντες (Rendall) or δικαιωθέντες (Ramsay). Observe that οἱδιὰπίστεως does not occur. St Paul’s thought goes deeper than to the means. Faith is the human source, though the Divine means.

[91] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

[92] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

[93] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

οὖτοι, Romans 8:14; James 1:25.

υἱοίεἰσινἈβραάμ. The Jews claimed spiritual, because physical, relationship, Matthew 3:9 (|| Luke 3:8); John 8:33; John 8:37; John 8:39. Observe not τέκνα but υἱοί, i.e. sonship with its full privileges. See Appendix, note C, for a brief consideration of Ramsay’s theory that this passage suggests acquaintance with the Greek (not Roman) law of sonship and inheritance, and so favours the South Galatian theory.

Galatians 3:8

8. προϊδοῦσαδὲ. “The exact force of δέ, which is never simply connective, and never loses all shades of its true oppositive character, deserves almost more attentive consideration in these Epp. than any other particle, and will often be found to supply the only true clue to the sequence and evolution of the argument” (Ell.). Here it suggests either (a) It s nothing new that the Gentiles should be saved by faith; this was told to Abraham; or, better, (b) It is not only a question of sonship but also of blessing.

προϊδοῦσα, i.e. before the present time, Acts 2:31. It is a common figure of speech to attribute personal activity to Scripture, due ultimately, no doubt, to the sense of Personality behind it; so here “foreseeing” and “preached the Gospel beforehand”; Galatians 3:22, “shut up,” besides the common “saith.”

ἡγραφὴ. In St John the singular = the particular passage quoted (cf. “another scripture,” John 19:37), and so generally in St Paul, even in Galatians 3:22 (see note there). If so, St Paul here meant: “the particular passage of Scripture which I am about to quote, ‘foreseeing’ etc., preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand in its words.” But it may be doubted whether here he did not merely translate the common neo-Hebraic ‘amar ha-kâthûb, “the Scripture saith,” which means the written word generally. He afterwards gives the words in which Scripture thus speaks. πᾶσαγραφή in 2 Timothy 3:16 doubtless means every document, rather than every passage short or long.

ὅτιἐκπίστεωςδικαιοῖ (Galatians 2:16), strictly present. Observe the emphatic position of ἐκπίστεως.

τὰἔθνη. Here first directly stated though implied in Galatians 2:14 end, 16 end. δικ. τ. ἔθνη must have been an oxymoron to Jewish readers. Cf. Bengel on 1 Corinthians 1:2, Ecclesia Dei in Corintho: laetum et ingens paradoxon.

ὁθεὸς (with δικαιοῖ). προευηγγελίσατο [94]τῷἈβραὰμ. Evangelium lege antiquius (Bengel), but St Paul has hardly come to this yet (Galatians 3:17). προ- is “beforehand,” i.e. before the blessing came to the Gentiles, as in προϊδοῦσα. Note that for St Paul the Gospel necessarily involves the inclusion of the Gentiles, Galatians 3:14.

[94] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

ὅτιἘνευλογηθήσονταιἐνσοὶπάντατὰἔθνη. ἐνευλ., Acts 3:25[95]. The quotation is a fusion of Gen 12:3; Genesis 18:18; cf. Genesis 22:18. In the Hebrew the verb is probably reflexive, “shall bless themselves”; in the LXX. and the N.T. passive. The blessing seems to be defined in Galatians 3:10 sqq., particularly as freedom from the curse of the Law. But more generally it is that state of friendly and covenant relation to God in which Abraham stood. ἐνσοί, in fellowship with Abraham and the truth he represents.

[95] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

Galatians 3:9

9. ὤστε, “so that,” i.e. since Abraham was justified by faith (Galatians 3:6), and those who are of faith are his sons (Galatians 3:7), and the blessings promised to the Gentiles come to them in him (Galatians 3:8). This thought is fully developed in Romans 4.

οἱἐκπίστεως (Galatians 3:7 note) εὐλογοῦνται. Not ἐνευλ. (Galatians 3:8), for he is not here insisting on union with Abraham. The tense is timeless. Observe that “sons” and “blessing” are related as “seed” and “heirs” in Galatians 3:29.

σὺντῷπιστῷἈβραάμ, “with believing Abraham,” or “with Abraham the believer.” For a full investigation of the use of πιστός see Hort on 1 Peter 1:21. In both the O.T. and Apocrypha it = “trustworthy” or “faithful,” but not “believing” or “trustful.” In the N.T. the latter meaning is still rare, but in our verse it is “a fresh application of an old epithet of Abraham.” See also in particular 2 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:3; Acts 16:1. The article recalls the fact that his faith has already been mentioned (Galatians 3:6), but it must be omitted in English. Similarly “faithful “no longer means “full of faith.” Thus the R.V., “the faithful Abraham,” is doubly unsatisfactory. St Paul changes ἐν to σύν when uttering his own words, probably because he was accustomed to think of blessing ἐνΧριστῷ.

Galatians 3:10

10. So far is it from all nations sharing with Abraham in blessing by the deeds of the Law, that they themselves who are under the Law are under a curse. Thus to obtain the blessing through the Law is impossible to human nature (see Theodore).

ὅσοι (Galatians 3:27, Galatians 6:12; Galatians 6:16; Romans 2:12 bis) γὰρἐξἔργωννόμουεἰσὶν. More emphatic and, as it were, inclusive than οἱἐξἔργ. νόμ. It includes, at first sight, all Jews and such Gentiles as accepted the Law as a means of salvation. Yet both phrases are able to exclude those, whether Jews or Gentiles, who, though living under the Law, were not of it, but had faith like that of Abraham.

ὑπὸκατάραν. In St Paul’s Epp., Galatians 3:13 bis[96]. It implies separation and departure from God, Matthew 25:41. In Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ἡεὐλογία and ἡκατάρα are contrasted.

[96] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

εἰσίν. Verbum hoc iteratur magna vi (Bengel).

γέγραπταιγὰρὅτικ.τ.λ. From Deuteronomy 27:26, LXX. The only important difference is the insertion of ἐντῷβιβλίῳ. The slight differences from the Hebrew are noticed under the separate words. It is the closing verse of the curses to be pronounced on Ebal. Requiritur obedientia perfecta, in omnibus, et perpetua, permanet. Hanc nemo praestat (Bengel). On the burden of the Law and St Paul’s attitude to it see Galatians 2:16 note.

ἐπικατάρατος, Galatians 3:13[97]. Frequent in LXX., and found also in the Inscriptions (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, pp. 61, 219).

[97] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

πᾶς. Not in the Hebrew, but a fair expansion of its meaning. Jerome thinks that it was there originally.

ὅςοὐκἐμμένει. So Acts 14:22; Hebrews 8:9, and of abiding in a place, Acts 28:30[98]. It is followed by the dative (without ἐν) in Acts 14:22 and generally in the LXX. On its use in legal forms with the dative of a participle see Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 248 sq.) and Moulton and Milligan (Expositor, VII. 6, 1909, p. 94). The Hebrew has “confirmeth not.”

[98] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

πᾶσιντοῖςγεγραμμένοις. Heb. “the words”; LXX. “all the words.”

ἐντῷβιβλίῳ. Not in Heb. or LXX. The word means properly the. papyrus-roll (“Byblos” is probably only another form of “Papyros”), but later, in both its ordinary (βίβλος) and its diminutive (βιβλίον) forms, may mean a book of the ordinary shape. On the subject see Kenyon in Hastings, D. B. IV. 945 sqq. St Paul seems purposely to have employed words which would exclude the Oral Law.

τοῦποιῆσαιαὐτά. More than merely epexegetic. It marks the aim of the continuance in the things written etc., cf. Romans 6:6; Philippians 3:10. On this infinitive see Ellicott in loco, and Moulton, Proleg., 1906, pp. 216 sqq.

Galatians 3:11

11. ὅτιδὲ. Adversative to the possibility of continuing in the things of the Law. The opposite is shown by the existence of another source of justification and consequent life, stated in Habakkuk. Weiss suggests that this begins the protasis of a sentence of which the apodosis is Galatians 3:13, Galatians 3:11 b (δηλονότι) to Galatians 3:12 then being a parenthesis. But this is quite unnecessary.

ἐννόμῳ. The Jewish Law, as throughout this Epistle, see Galatians 2:16, note. The phrase is to be taken closely with δικαιοῦται, and signifies in the performance of the Law, not, as it is often misunderstood, in the statement of the Law, i.e. the Prophets. It takes the place of ἐξἕργωννόμου.

οὐδεὶςδικαιοῦταιπαρὰτῷθεῷ. For παρά cf. Romans 2:13.

δῆλον. With the preceding; the following ὅτι = because. Some join it with the following: “Now because no one (as is evident from Galatians 3:10) is justified in (the) Law it is clear that the righteous shall live by faith.” But this form of reasoning is very un Pauline.

ὅτι. Proof: Faith (not works) justifies, and life ensues.

ὁδίκαιοςἐκπίστεωςζήσεται. So Romans 1:17. See also Hebrews 10:38. From Habakkuk 2:4, where it is said that, in contrast to the Chaldaean invader whose soul is lifted up in pride, the righteous (though hemmed in by the wicked, Galatians 1:4) shall live by his stedfastness, i.e. primarily his trustworthiness and faithfulness of principle. This, as the result of steady faith, is not unfairly understood as faith in the active sense by the N.T. writers, though probably not by the LXX. (see Driver, Minor Prophets, p. 63). The LXX. misreading “his” as “my” has in B ὁδὲδίκαιοςἐκπίστεώςμουζήσεται, which A modifies by inserting another μου after δίκαιός.

It is very difficult to decide whether St Paul intended the stress of ἐκπίστεως to lie on ὁδίκαιος or on ζήσεται. In favour of the latter is the almost certain construction of the Hebrew and of the quotation in Hebrews, and the ease with which St Paul could have modified the quotation to run ὁἐκπίστεωςδίκαιος. Yet the former is preferable here in view of the fact that up to this point he has been thinking of justification, and not of life (see especially Winer-Schmiedel, § 20. 5 d). How can men escape the curse (Galatians 3:10), and be righteous? By faith.

Galatians 3:12

12. ὁδὲνόμος. In contrast to the effect of faith just mentioned.

οὐκἔστινἐκπίστεως. The Law has not faith, as the fundamental principle, or basis, of its existence. The phrase is even stronger than Theodoret’s words imply: ὁνόμοςοὐπίστινζητεῖ, ἀλλὰπρᾶξινἀπαιτεῖ, καὶτοῖςφυλάττονσιντὴνζωὴνἐπαγγέλλεται.

ἀλλʼ Ὁποιήσαςαὐτὰζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς. From Leviticus 18:5, a free rendering of the Hebrew; see also Ezekiel 20:11. St Paul has the same quotation in Romans 10:5, in a slightly different form. The promise in Leviticus and Ezekiel is that in performance lies life. But what if, as is the case, performance is more than we can accomplish? “We must find our refuge in God Himself, i.e. leave the Law for Faith.

Galatians 3:13

13. Χριστὸς. The absence of a connecting particle emphasises the greatness of this glad contrast (Colossians 2:20 note). Cf. Titus 3:4-7. Probably “Christ” here has its full meaning of “Messiah,” if, as it seems, St Paul is thinking of Jews.

ἡμᾶς. This also by its position has a secondary emphasis. He means “us Jews” (he thinks of Gentiles in Galatians 3:14, as in Galatians 4:5) who as being ἐξἔργωννόμον were under a curse (Galatians 3:10).

ἐξηγόρασενἐκτ. κατάραςτ. νόμον. Galatians 4:5 note; Colossians 4:5 note. The prepositions lay stress on the fact that we were in the curse.

γενόμενος (“by becoming”) ὑπὲρἡμῶνκατάρα. We should not have dared to apply such a term to Christ, and our tendency still is to minimize its meaning. But while we must be careful not to extend this unduly we cannot exaggerate its intensity. Christ did know in awful reality the effect of sin in separating from God (Matthew 27:46). Elsewhere St Paul says that He was made ἁμαρτία (2 Corinthians 5:21). He became an awful example of the inexorable rigour of the Law.

ὑπὲρ not ἀντί, though Christ Himself says that He came to give τ. ψυχὴναὐτοῦλὐτρονἀντὶπολλῶν (Mark 10:45 || Matthew 20:28), and St Paul says that He gave Himself ἀντίλυτρονὑπὲρπάντων (1 Timothy 2:6), these being the only places in the N.T. where ἀντί is used in any combination with reference to the atonement (see below). Thus St Paul avoids here and elsewhere the question, so dear to Protestant controversialists, of the manner in which the redemption acted. ἀντὶἡμῶν would more readily have suggested (though it would not have required) the meaning that He bore the exact equivalent of the punishment due to sinners. “A curse for our sake” is vaguer, and perhaps more suitable to our limited intelligence of the stupendous self-sacrifice on the cross.

Epiphanius says οὐκαὐτὸςκατάραγέγονεν, ἀλλὰτὴνὑπὲρἡμῶνἀνεδέξατοκατάραν (Haer. LXXVII. p. 424: in Suicer, s.v. κατάρα). Chrysostom draws out the meaning of the Apostles’ language when he writes: καθάπερτινὸςκαταδικασθέντοςἀποθανεῖν, ἒτεροςἀνεύθυνοςἑλόμενοςἀποθανείνὑπὲρἐκείνου, ἐξαρπάζειτῆςτιμωρίαςαὐτόνοὕτωκαὶὁΧριστὸςἐποίησεν.

On the possibility, however, that ὑπέρ may contain some thought of “instead of” see note at Philemon 1:13, with its illustration from the papyri, and Ell. here, also Galatians 1:4, Galatians 2:20 notes. Meyer says that this does not lie in the preposition but in the circumstances of the case. See further A. T. Robertson, Short Grammar, p. 124.

ὅτι. Proof that κατάρα is true. γέγραπταιἘπικατάρατος (Galatians 3:10) πᾶςὁκρεμάμενοςἐπὶξύλου. From the LXX. of Deuteronomy 21:23, which however has ὑπιὸθεοῦ after ἐπικατάρατος in accordance with the Hebrew. The curse must have been in fact ὑπὸθεοῦ for it to have been of any validity, but St Paul naturally shrinks from saying so. Of course Deuteronomy 21:23 does not refer to crucifixion or impaling alive, but to the hanging or impaling of a dead body (Joshua 10:26; 2 Samuel 4:12) as an additional disgrace. St Paul, however, does not quote the passage to illustrate the mode of death, but the place on which a person hangs.

The above rendering of the Hebrew (lit. “he that is hanged is a curse of God”) is essentially also that of Aquila and Theodotion (κατάραθεοῦκρεμάμενος), and is doubtless right, but it is possible for the Hebrew to mean “is a curse, i.e. an insult, to God.” So many Jewish authorities. Rashi, for example, says “It is a slight to the King, because man is made in the likeness of His image.” The same objective construction underlies the words of Josephus, Ant. IV. 8. 6 (§ 202), ὁδὲβλασφημήσαςθεὸνκαταλευσθεὶςκρεμάσθωδιʼ ἡμέραςκαὶἀτίμωςκαὶἀφανῶςθαπτέσθω. See further Lightfoot’s additional note, p. 150, and Driver on Deut.

ἐπὶξύλου. So Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Acts 13:29; 1 Peter 2:24.

Elsewhere in the N.T., with the exception of its use in the phrase [τὸ] ξύλον [τῆς] ζωῆς, ξύλον always means dead wood. And so probably here, in accordance with Jewish law for a gibbet (see Jewish Encyclopedia III. 557).

Galatians 3:14

14. ἵνα. The redemption of the Jews was in order that the blessing of and in Abraham might also come on the Gentiles. For if Jews, Abraham’s seed, remained under the curse Gentiles could not be delivered.

There is no thought in the context of the destruction of the Law as a barrier between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14); nor even of the fact that Jews, and therefore Gentiles, were set free from the dominion of the Law (or they would have gone back again into the curse).

εἰςτὰἔθνη … γένηται, “might reach unto the Gentiles.” The dative would have been sufficient to say that the Gentiles got the blessing, Acts 2:43. The stronger form probably suggests more difficulty in the process, or distance in the recipients. But the fact that “in modern Greek εἰς is the usual circumlocution for the lost dative” (Blass, Gram. § 39. 5) makes it possible that it is only a more vivid, and more emphatic, way of expressing transference. There seems to be no exact parallel to the usage here. The nearest Isaiah 2 Corinthians 8:14. Contrast 1 Corinthians 15:45.

ἡεὐλογία. Vaughan on Romans 15:29 well summarises the use of this term, (a) Speaking good of another, especially as applied to the praise of God, James 3:10; Revelation 7:12. (b) A benediction which fulfils itself in benefaction, either on the part of man, 2 Corinthians 9:5, or on that of God, Romans 15:29; Ephesians 1:3, and here.

τοῦἈβραὰμ. He was blessed and others were to be blessed with him (Galatians 3:9) and in him (Galatians 3:8).

ἐνἸησοῦΧριστῷ. See notes on Textual Criticism. Added to concentrate St Paul’s teaching. The order suggests first the historic Personality who suffered and rose, and secondly His eternal relation to believers.

ἴνα.… The reception of the promise of the Spirit is closely connected with the inclusion of the Gentiles (Galatians 3:8 note), and here made dependent upon it logically.

τὴνἐπαγγελίαν. See notes on Textual Criticism. The first use of a word that is very important in the following verses. It appears to have been already a technical term in Pharisaic circles for the privileges possessed by the true Israelite (see Hart, Ecclesiasticus, pp. 306 sqq.). St Paul here further defines it, and, in defining, raises it to a higher level.

τοῦπνεύματος. The spirit was definitely promised in Joe 2:28; cf. Acts 2:16 sqq. Here it is implied that the promise had run all through Israel’s history. In a sense this is true, for Moses’ words, Numbers 11:26-29, imply the possibility of all the LORD’s people being prophets, with the LORD’s spirit upon them.

λάβωμεν. St Paul reverts to Galatians 3:2. But here, as often, St Paul hastens to identify himself with those to whom he writes. It means “we all,” Jewish and Gentile believers.

διὰτῆςπίστεως, “by means of our faith.” Theodore, regarding the resurrection-life as already begun, is very good in his remarks on there being no place now left for the Law. “Superfluum et quidem ultra est; redditum est ei debitum a Christo, quod a nobis debebatur. Locum autem non habens, quoniam res non admittit eos qui semel transmigraverunt in futuram vitam praesentis vitae succumbere negotiis.”

Galatians 3:15

15. Ἀδελφοί. Galatians 1:11 note. λάβωμεν (Galatians 3:14) has suggested a common relationship to Christ.

κατὰἄνθρωπον (Galatians 1:11) λέγω. Romans 3:5[99], which guides us to the right meaning here: I am applying human arguments as though I were speaking of the relation of man to man, although I am well aware that the reality deals with the relation of God to us. A less probable interpretation based on 1 Corinthians 9:8 is: I take an illustration from ordinary human life, in contrast to one taken from Scripture. So Chrysostom.

[99] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

ὅμως, “nevertheless,” i.e. although it seems indecorous to apply human arguments to God’s procedure—even a man’s διαθ. no one treats lightly. There is no sufficient reason for reading ὁμῶς “in like manner” here and 1 Corinthians 14:7 with Blass (Gram. § 77. 14).

ἀνθρώπουκεκυρωμένην, “a man’s διαθ. when ratified,” 2 Corinthians 2:8[100]; Genesis 23:20 (of the field and the cave to Abraham). Purposely nothing is said about the manner of ratification. All is as general as possible.

[100] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

διαθήκην. It is extremely difficult to determine the meaning of διαθήκη here and in Galatians 3:17 and the image intended by St Paul.

(1) The Greek word that appears to us to be the most natural translation of “covenant” (i.e. a contract or agreement between two parties) is συνθήκη, which is common from Aeschylus downwards (see L. and S.). διαθήκη on the contrary seems never to mean a covenant in Classical Greek (see the criticism of Lightfoot by Ramsay, Gal. p. 362) or in the Greek of the Papyri and Inscriptions. Deissmann writes “I can affirm … that no one in the Levant of the first century A.D. could imagine that the word διαθήκη contained the meaning of ‘covenant’[101].” In these two vast collections of Greek it means a solemn enactment or Disposition of property etc. to take effect either in lifetime or after death.

[101] Ich kann auf Grund eines grossen Materials wohl sagen, dass kein Mensch in der Mittelmeerwelt des ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus auf den Gedanken kommen konnte, in dem Worte διαθήκη den Begriff Bund zu finden (Licht vom Osten, p. 243).

(2) Yet it is, as we may say, the only rendering of berith, “covenant,” in the LXX. For, if we take Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance as the basis, we find that berith is represented by διαθήκη 282 times, by συνθήκη only once, in 2 Kings 17:15 A, and by ἐντολαί once in 1 Kings 11:11. It is also transliterated three times. In Deuteronomy 9:15 the phrase “the two tables of the covenant” is rendered by αἱδύοπλάκεςτῶνμαρτυρίων in AF, but τ. μαρτ. is absent in B.

How are we to account for this use of διαθήκη by the LXX. in face of the evidence of the classics and the Inscriptions and Papyri? We notice that in Genesis 6:18, the first occurrence of berith, it is used of God’s promise to Noah, and obviously therefore διαθήκη is a more suitable translation than συνθήκη. If this did not actually set the tone for the use of διαθήκη rather than συνθήκη (even in cases where berith means a covenant between man and man) throughout the O.T. (and we cannot suppose this in view of the multitude of translators) yet it fell in with what must have been the current note in the Graeco-Jewish mind of the time. Hence when used of God διαθήκη would retain much of its proper meaning, a solemn Disposition; the additional notion of acceptance, and so agreement by the receiving party, being wholly subordinate. So especially Jeremiah 31:31, the new covenant of the Prophets. It may perhaps be added that it is also possible that the διά of the compounds διαθήκη and διατίθεμαι, though properly meaning thoroughness, may, by a popular etymology, have suggested to a Jew passing through the divided members of the animal connected with a covenant.

(3) The use of διαθήκη in the N.T.

(i) In no instance is it, or its verb διατίθεμαι, indisputably used of a mere contract between man and man. For this the verb συντίθεμαι is employed, Luke 22:5; John 9:22; Acts 23:20, but the substantive συνθήκη does not occur, (ii) The quotations from the O.T., or the allusions to it, in every case refer to a Divine διαθήκη. (a) With Abraham and the Fathers, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8; Romans 9:4 (plural); Ephesians 2:12 (plural), (b) In the time of Moses, Hebrews 8:9 (vide infra); Hebrews 9:4 bis, Hebrews 9:15 b (ἡπρώτηδιαθήκη), Hebrews 9:20 and apparently Revelation 11:19. (c) The new covenant of the Prophets: Romans 11:27, taken from Isaiah 59:20-21; Hebrews 8:8-10 (from Jeremiah 31:31 sqq.), Hebrews 10:16. To this perhaps may be added Hebrews 8:6 and Hebrews 9:15 a. (iii) The reference by our Lord at the Last Supper (Mark 14:24, τοῦτόἐστιντὸαἷμάμουτῆςδιαθήκηςτὸἐκχυννόμενονὑπὲρπολλῶν || Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) is to a διαθήκη by God in the O.T. sense, i.e. a Disposition by God, though the mention of blood seems to contain the connotation of acceptance by God’s people. (iv) The language of the writer of Heb 9:16-17 looks indeed at first sight as though the author used διαθήκη in the sense of “will” or “testament,” i.e. a Disposition to take effect only at death; but probably even there the thought of “the death of the testator “is connected with the death of Christ rather as “covenant-victim” than as testator properly so called (see Westcott in loco and especially p. 302). See also Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 10:29, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:20.

(4) St Paul in the passages already cited and also in 2 Corinthians 3:6 (καιν. διαθ.) and 14 (τ. παλ. δ.), Ephesians 2:12, uses the word διαθήκη in the sense in which the translators of the LXX. used it with reference to God, and in which our Lord used it in the words recorded of Him, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that he used it in the same sense in our Epistle. But there is almost equally little doubt that the word “covenant” does not adequately express this sense. Some such word as “Disposition” is required if we are to bring out the supremacy and the grace connoted by διαθήκη. We may not translate “will” or “testament,” for these connote death, which διαθήκη does not necessarily do. It may, for example, include an adoption of a son during lifetime (see Ramsay, Gal. p. 351). Our “deed of gift” is perhaps the closest legal term representative of διαθήκη, cf. the quotation from Philo on p. 74.

In Galatians 3:15 St Paul is thinking of a “Disposition” by man generally; in Galatians 3:17 he passes directly to the great “Disposition” made by God which governs all His dealings with Abraham and his descendants. In Galatians 4:24 he has in his mind the two “Dispositions” by God, one made on Mount Sinai, the other made through Christ.

(5) Observe further:

(a) The subject is quite general. There is no reference either to the Roman or to the Greek law of wills, if even a difference of custom existed at this time. See Appendix, Note C. In particular observe that there is no reference to adoption in these verses.

It may even be questioned whether ἡκληρονομία (Galatians 3:18) is regarded as the result of the “Disposition”; for it is so very common a metaphor in the Old Testament.

(b) If in our verse the reference is quite general there is no occasion to ask how the question of death comes in. A “disposition” may or may not depend on the death of the testator. Thus in the reality of which the human “disposition” is a figure there is no room for objecting that God does not die, or for answering with Luther that the death of the Lord Jesus meets the difficulty. The question of death is simply not raised by St Paul, and the object of a commentary is to try and understand his thoughts, not to discuss what he never intended to suggest.

οὐδεὶς, i.e. no person other than the “disposer.” To understand it as meaning no person, no, not even the “disposer” himself, is to put an intolerable strain upon the passage. In our passage it excludes the νόμος of Galatians 3:17, personifying it.

ἀθετεῖ, “sets aside,” Galatians 2:21 note.

ἢἐπιδιατάσσεται[102], i.e. adds an additional clause, a codicil, or a later deed, an ἐπιδιαθήκη. Cf. Joseph. B.J. II. 2. 3 (§ 20) of Antipas ἀξιῶντῆςἐπιδιαθἠκηςκυριωτέραυεἶναιτὴνδιαθήκην, and, for the contrary opinion of Archelaus and his advocate, 6 (§ 35). In Inscriptions found in Asia Minor διατάσσομαι is technically used of making testamentary dispositions (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 57). The statement is general, but as referring to God’s action it is implied that the Law is not an addition to the promise in the sense that it affects the latter.

[102] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

Galatians 3:16

16. The verse shows (a) the antiquity of the διαθήκη; it was given to Abraham: (b) its character; it consisted of promises: (c) the truths underlying its form; (α) it was not limited to Abraham personally but extended to his seed; (β) and in fact the word “seed” strictly interpreted indicated a reference to one person, i.e. Christ.

αἱἐπαγγελίαι. Plural, because the one promise was often repeated, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 13:17; Genesis 17:7-10; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 24:7. Of these Genesis 17:7-10 seems to be most in St Paul’s mind because the word διαθήκη occurs there.

κ. τῷσπέρματιαὐτοῦ. The διαθ. was not determined by Abraham’s own life. It extends to his descendants. St Paul does not here discuss who these are, partly because he has already shown that they who are of faith are his sons in the truest sense, Galatians 3:7, but chiefly because the words suggest to him another thought that is even further-reaching.

οὐλἑγει, i.e. Scripture. So λέγει, Romans 15:10 (where it serves as a change of expression from γέγραπται); Ephesians 4:8 and perhaps even Galatians 5:14.

Καὶτοῖςσπέρμασιν, ὡςἐπὶπολλῶν, ἀλλʼ ὡςἐφʼ ἑνόςΚαὶτῷσπέρματίσου. The plural is used of persons in Daniel 11:31 (Theodotion) καίσπέρματαἐξαὐτοῦἀναστήσονται, where it is a harsh rendering of a wrongly vocalised Hebrew term (zerô‘im as though zerâ‘im). In 4Ma 18:1 (ὦτῶνἈβραμιαίωνσπερμάτωνἀπόγονοιπαῖδεςἸσραηλεῖται) the plural seems to regard Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as so many “Abrahamic seeds.” Plato, Laws, p. 853 c, is also quoted. But, practically speaking, the plural either of the Greek or of the Hebrew word could not be used of human progeny. The Apostle knew this and more Rabbinico calls attention to the fact that a word was chosen which (whether perforce or not makes no difference) was in fact employed in the singular. There is, he says, a spiritual meaning in this: all Abraham’s descendants are summed up in one, I say one Person, even Christ. See note at the end of this chapter.

An illustration has been drawn from Philo, who, in his explanation of the allegorical meaning of the promise, Genesis 17:16 (εὐλογήσωδὲαὐτήν, καὶδώσωσοιἐξαὐτῆςτέκνον), lays stress on the singular τἑκνον instead of τέκνα, as signifying τὸκαλόν in, apparently, its ideal (De Mut. Nom., 26 §§ 145 sqq.). But this is really an interpretation of the fact “one child” rather than of the verbal form per se.

But precisely similar in principle to St Paul’s words is the reverse argument of the force of the plural demey (bloods) instead of the singular dăm (blood) in Genesis 4:10. This means, it is said, Abel’s own blood and the blood of his descendants; or that Abel’s blood was cast on the trees and on the stones (Mishna, Sanhedrin IV. 5 = T. B. Sanhedr. 37 a). Even more similar is the insistence on the singular rish‘a (“wickedness”) in Deuteronomy 25:2 instead of the impossible plural resha‘ôth (“wickednesses”), T. B.

Kethuboth, 37 a. (These references are due to Surenhusius, Biblos Catallages, pp. 85 sq.) It may also be worth mentioning that “seed” in Genesis 4:25 is said to refer to Messiah in Bereshith R., Parasha XXIII. 7, and in Genesis 19:32 in Bereshith R., Parasha LI. 10, while the Targum of Isa 53:10 renders “he shall see (his) seed” by “they shall see the kingdom of their Messiah.” Observe particularly that Christ is mentioned here not as He through whom the blessing is obtained, but as He to whom the promise was given, i.e. He is regarded as the recipient of the promise. If so it is evident that others, whether Jews or Gentiles, can receive it only in Him. They who are “of works” and not “of faith” on Christ lose all share in the promise.

Galatians 3:17

17. τοῦτοδὲλέγω. Now what I mean, by using the figure in Galatians 3:15.

διαθήκην. St Paul here distinctly passes from the general notion of διαθήκη (Galatians 3:15 note) to the special, i.e. to God’s great disposition to Abraham.

προκεκυρωμένην[103]. The preposition strengthens the thought of time already lying in the perfect. The confirmation may be seen in the vision of the burning lamp (Genesis 15), or the repetition of the promise, or the oath (Hebrews 6:13-14 referring to Genesis 22:16-17).

[103] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

ὑπὸτοῦθεοῦ. See notes on Textual Criticism.

ὁμετὰτετρακόσιακαὶτριάκονταἔτηγεγονὼςνόμος. St Paul is not concerned with the question as to who gave the Law, or with that of its being “given” at all, but only with the fact of its having come into existence (γεγονώς).

St Paul’s period of 430 years from Abraham to the exodus is practically that of the LXX. in Exodus 12:40 sq. (ἡδὲκατοίκησιςτῶνυἱῶνἸσραήλἣνκατῴκησανἐνγῇΑἰγύπτῳκαὶἐνγῇΧανάανἔτητετρακόσιατριάκοντα [+ πέντεΒ*]), which is also that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus, Ant. II. 15. 2 (§ 318), Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 12:40 (the Fragmenten-targum does not contain this verse). Compare also Charles’ note on the Book of Jubilees 14:13. But St Stephen, Acts 7:6 (though using “400” as a round number), follows the Hebrew of Exo 12:40, according to which the 430 years were all spent in Egypt, and so Philo (Quis rer. div. her. 54, § 269) and Josephus (Ant. II. 9. 1 [§ 204]; B.J. v. 9. 4 [§ 382]). So also Genesis 15:13.

οὐκἀκυροῖ, “does not repeal,” Matthew 15:6 || Mark 7:13[104]; stronger than ἀθετεῖ, Galatians 3:15. See Swete on Mark 7:13. Cf. the juristic formula in the papyri εἰςἀθέτησινκαὶἀκύρωσιν (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 228, and Moulton and Milligan in Expositor, VII. 5, 1908, p. 177).

[104] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

εἰςτὸκαταργῆσαι (Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:11) τὴνἐπαγγελίαν. “So as to make the promise of none effect” (R.V.). Compare Romans 4:14. The force of εἰςτὸ is to express the “measure of effect, or result” (see Moulton, Proleg., 1906, p. 219).

Galatians 3:18

18. εἰγὰρἐκνόμουκ.τ.λ. I say καταργ. τ. ἐπαγ. for the Law and the promise are so fundamentally different in their nature that if the inheritance promised in the διαθήκη after all springs from the Law (or perhaps “from law”), it no longer springs from promise. The anarthrous ἐπαγγελίας (contrast Galatians 3:17), i.e. promise as such, probably determines in this verse the meaning of νόμου, i.e. law as such.

ἡκληρονομία. While we must keep “inheritance” as a translation (rather than any such word as “apportionment”) because of its connexion with “heirs,” Galatians 3:29, Galatians 4:1; Galatians 4:7, it must be remembered that according to Hort (see his important note on 1 Peter 1:4) it “apparently contains no implication of hereditary succession, as it does usually in classical Greek. The sense is rather ‘sanctioned and settled possession.’  ” The κληρονομία of Israel was originally the land of Canaan, as is implied in Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 13:17; Genesis 17:8; Genesis 24:7, but the word readily lent itself to include, as here, all spiritual privileges present and future, which are “the fulfilment of ancient longings of men and ancient promises of God.” See also Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 167 sqq.

τῷδὲἈβραὰμδιʼ ἐπαγγελίας. The fact is certain. It was by promise not law.

κεχάρισταιὁθεός. God not only promised the inheritance, but He has given it freely by promise and the gift abides. St Paul’s fresh word emphasises the freeness of the gift and the tense its permanence. So Acts 27:24; Romans 8:32: Philemon 1:22. The fact that God’s disposition has been given once for all by promise forbids any essential alteration of it. “A διαθήκη,” says Philo, “is a symbol of grace, which God has placed between Himself who proffers it and man who receives it; and this is the very extravagance of beneficence, that there is nothing between God and the soul except His own virgin grace” (De Mut. Nom., 6 §§ 52 sq., Young’s translation).

Galatians 3:19

19. τίοὖνὁνόμος; If the Law does not modify the disposition, i.e. the Promise, what therefore is its essential character and aim? For we may assume that it was not given superfluously, or as Luther puts it: “When we teach that a man is justified without the Law and works, then doth this question necessarily follow: If the Law do not justify, why was it given?”

τῶνπαραβάσεωνχάρινπροσετέθη. παραβ., Romans 2:23; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:14; Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 9:15[105]. παραβάτης Galatians 2:18. The article is probably possessive, i.e. “the transgressions of it.” For χάριν cf. 1 John 3:12.

[105] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

προσετέθη. Only here in St Paul’s writings, but frequent in Luke and Acts, twice in Matt, and once in Mk. and Heb.

The clause is patient of two interpretations:

(a) The transgressions of the promise made the Law necessary lest the promise should be lost. God gave the Law in order that the promise might be maintained.

(b) The Law was added to bring out before the conscience the transgressions of itself, to show the tendency of human nature as a dam shows the force of the stream. This is to be preferred as being certainly the meaning of the kindred passages, Romans 4:13-15; Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7-12 and as virtually stated in Galatians 3:22 infra. Perhaps St Paul had already dwelt upon this in his oral teaching, for he assumes that his meaning will be intelligible to his readers. Here it was sufficient to indicate the cause of this temporary addition to the promise, which he says the Law was.

ἂχριςἂνἒλθῃ. W.H. marg. gives οὗ for ἄν, compare Galatians 4:19. Cf. Genesis 49:10, especially the Latin renderings there for Shiloh: semen quod ei repositum est (Tractatus de sanctis scripturis), and semen cui repositum est (Hilary).

Luther points out that St Paul’s statement is true both literally, i.e. the Law lasted only until Christ came, and spiritually, i.e. in the individual the Law does not reign in the conscience after Christ is admitted.

τὸσπέρμα. Christ as already defined in Galatians 3:16.

ᾦἐπήγγελται, “to whom He has made the promise.” So elsewhere in the N.T. where the perfect occurs, Romans 4:21; Hebrews 12:26[106].

[106] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

διαταγεὶςκ.τ.λ. The clause is added to show the inferiority of the Law to the Promise. The Promise was given directly by God to Abraham; the Law was given indirectly, and indeed doubly so, (a) by means of angels, (b) through Moses.

Another reason for the addition of the clause has been found. It enhances in the mind of the reader the dignity of the Law and the solemnity of its ordination, as though “the glory of the Law glorified the glory of the promise.” But St Paul is here rather belittling the Law than magnifying the promise, and he is about to point out the inferiority of a mediator.

διαταγ. “appointed” as in 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 16:1. Probably in the technical sense mentioned in the note on ἐπιδιατάσσεται, Galatians 3:15. The tense is synchronous with προσετέθη. Ramsay (Gal. p. 381) strangely thinks that it marks a further step after προσετέθη.

διʼ ἀγγέλων. The earliest mention of angels as the media through whom the Law was given to Moses appears to be Jubilees I. 27 (where see Charles): “and He said to the angel of the presence [perhaps Michael]: ‘Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity.’  ” Compare Josephus, Ant. XV. 5. 3 (§ 136) ἡμῶνδὲτὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτωνκαὶτὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοιςδιʼ ἀγγέλωνπαρὰτοῦθεοῦμαθότων. So also Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2. The mention of angels in Deuteronomy 33:2 in connexion with the giving of the Law, especially in the LXX. where they are said to have been on the right hand of the LORD, marks an earlier stage in the doctrine. Luther expresses the thought of our passage when he writes, “The Law is the voice of the servants, but the Gospel is the voice of the Lord Himself.”

ἐνχειρὶ. Hardly the common Hebraism (“by the hand of” = “by”) employed to avoid the repetition of διά. It suggests the reception by Moses of the tables into his hands.

μεσίτου, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24; Job 9:33[107]: cf. μεσιτεύω Hebrews 6:17[108]. In Test. XII. Patr., Daniel 6 the angel that intercedes for Israel is called “the mediator between God and men” (μεσίτηςθεοῦκαὶἀνθρώπων), but in our Epistle the word evidently refers to Moses, as in the Assumption of Moses, i. 14, iii. 12. St Paul, that is to say, regards the angels as media, not as mediators; as taking no active part in praying or proclaiming. Thus a second medium is employed between God and Israel, first angels as representing God, and then Moses as representing the people (cf. Deuteronomy 5:5).

[107] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

[108] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

Galatians 3:20

20. ὁδὲμεσίτης, “but a mediator.” The article is generic, or, perhaps better, recalls the mediator just mentioned: cf. Galatians 3:23; Galatians 3:25.

δέ, adversative, probably to the thought that a mediator is in itself good, or possibly to the Jewish glorification of Moses as mediator.

ἑνὸςοὐκἔστιν, i.e. does not belong to the category of “one.” In a promise God acts alone; when a mediator is employed in any act of His there is an implication of plurality and separation from Himself so long as the thing mediated is in force.

ὁδὲθεὸςεἷςἐστίν. But God is essentially one in His nature and character. The idea of unity in word and act is most consonant with Him. St Paul would doubtless have written ἕν if this would not have suggested to his readers too material and impersonal a thought to be connected with God.

The verse thus serves to bring out the superiority of the Promise over the Law. It is in fuller agreement with God’s own character than was the Law. For the Promise was given directly by God to Abraham and his seed: the Law was given mediately, through Angels and by Moses. This mediation is a mark of inferiority set upon it.

The verse is so difficult that it is said to have received above 250 (Meyer) or 430 (Jowett) interpretations. The most important source of differences lies in the second half, many expositors explaining it as “God is one party and the Israelites are a second,” i.e. the Law depends for its fulfilment upon the ability of the second party to keep it, and is in this respect inferior to the unconditioned character of the Promise. But though at first sight the masculine εἷς suggests this interpretation, yet this is not so closely connected with the immediate context as that given above.

Observe (1) St Paul’s purpose in this verse is not to state, much less to prove, monotheism. He assumes this, and does not even mention it save in so far as it is included under the unity of God’s nature. (2) Galatians 3:19-20 are not opposed to the Christian doctrine of the mediatorship of Christ. St Paul would thoroughly agree with the ordinary Jewish view that a mediatorship in the sense of an intermediate being between God and man is unnecessary. Nay, he says here as much, for, though a believer in Christ, he speaks disparagingly of such a mediator. The fact is that to him, as to us, Christ is not distinct from God, but is God. When on the other hand he speaks of ἄνθρωποςΧριστὸςἸησοῦς as μεσίτηςθεοῦκαὶἀνθρώπων (1 Timothy 2:5) he is regarding Him in His humanity, putting, for the moment, His Godhead out of sight. See the quotation from a letter by Archbishop Temple, Appendix, Note D.

NOTE D

Archbishop Temple on Galatians 3:20

“I prefer to take the argument in this sense. The law was ordained for a temporary purpose and showed its temporary character by being given through a Mediator. For God, being the eternal unity, can make no abiding covenant with any except those whom He so unites with Himself as to exclude the notion of a Mediator altogether. Or to put it in another way—a mediator implies separation, and a covenant made through a mediator implies perpetual separation while the covenant lasts. Such a covenant therefore cannot be eternal, for God the Eternal One cannot allow perpetual separation from Himself.” A letter in 1852 to the Rev. Robert Scott, afterwards Dean of Rochester (Life of Archbishop Temple, II. p. 494).

Galatians 3:21

21. ὁοὖννόμος. Seeing therefore that the Law is inferior to the Promise (Galatians 3:19-20) are we to conclude that there is opposition between these two expressions of God’s mind? Is, that is to say, the Law by its very nature contradictory to the Promises?

κατὰτῶνἐπαγγελιῶν (Galatians 3:16) [τοῦθεοῦ]. See notes on Textual Criticism.

μὴγένοιτο. St Paul is so horrified because it would imply a contradiction in the mind and character of God.

εἰγὰρκ.τ.λ. No, for the Law as far as it goes is good.

ἐδόθηνόμος, “if a law had ever been given.”

ὁδυνάμενοςζωοποιῆσαι. For the article cf. Romans 1:18; Acts 10:41.

ὄντως, “in reality,” as opposed to mere pretence. Found only here, 1 Corinthians 14:25; 1 Timothy 5:3; 1 Timothy 5:5; 1 Timothy 5:16; 1 Timothy 6:19, in St Paul’s writings.

ἐννόμῳ. See notes on Textual Criticism. Almost certainly (a) “in the Law” (Galatians 2:16 note on ἔργωννόμου). The Mosaic Law would have brought righteousness. But possibly (b) “in law” as such. The Mosaic Law was a failure because righteousness is not to be found in law at all, but in faith. The marginal ἐκνόμου is in favour of (b). There does not seem to be sufficient reason for taking ἐν as instrumental.

ἂἦνἡδικαιοσύνη. The article is difficult. Either it means the righteousness required, and even revealed, in the Law but not obtained in it, or, and more probably, it consciously takes up the thought of the righteousness suggested in Galatians 3:11. In either case it is the necessary condition of the life implied in ζωοποιῆσαι.

Galatians 3:22

22. ἀλλὰ. In contradiction to the hypothesis in Galatians 3:21 b, the statement of Scripture is otherwise.

συνέκλεισεν. Galatians 3:23, Romans 11:32; Luke 5:6[109]. For its metaphorical use in the LXX. see Psalms 30 (31):9, 77 (78):50, 62. The preposition refers not to the things enclosed, i.e. “together,” but to the completeness of the closure, “complete custody, so that the enclosed are absolutely and entirely held in by the barriers in question” (Meyer).

[109] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

ἡγραφὴ. Galatians 3:8 note. The passage here referred to is Deuteronomy 27:26, quoted in Galatians 3:10, or, less probably, Psalms 142 (143):2, quoted in Galatians 2:16.

τὰπάντα. Not strictly in the sense of “all things,” as in Colossians 1:20. Perhaps it is safest to understand it of the whole results of the dispensation of the Law, but persons may be referred to by the neuter in abstract speech: see John 6:37; 1 John 5:4. So Thuc. III. 11. 4 τὰκράτισταἐπὶτοὺςὑποδεεστέρουςπρώτουςξυνεπῆγον; Xen. Anab. VII. 3. 11 τὰμὲνφεύγουτακαὶἀποδιδράσκονταἡμεῖςἱκανοίἐσόμεθαδιώκειν … ἢνδέτιςἀνθιστῆταικ.τ.λ. See Winer-Schmiedel, § 28. 1; Blass, § 32. 1. For the thought cf. Romans 11:32.

ἵνα, strictly telic. Cf. Chrysostom εἰδὲδιὰτοῦτοἐδόθη [όνόμος], ἴνασυγκλείσῃπάντας, τουτέστιν, ἵναἐλέγξῃκαὶδείξῃτὰοἰκεῖααὐτῶνπλημμελήματα, οὐμόνονοὐκωλύεισετοῦτυχεῖντῆςἐπαγγελίας, ἀλλὰκαὶσυμπράττειπρὸςτὸτυχεῖν … ἐπειδὴγὰρἸουδαῖοιοὐδὲτῶνἁμαρτημάτωνᾐσθάνοντοτῶνοἰκείων, μὴαἰσθανόμενοιδὲοὐδὲἀφέσεωςἐπεθύμουν, ἔδωκετὸννόμονἐλέγχοντατὰτραύματα, ἵναποθήσωσιτὸνἰατρόν.

ἡἐπαγγελίαἐκπίστεωςἸ. Χρ. δοθῇ. ἐκπ., cf. the marginal ἐκνόμου Galatians 3:21. ἐκπ. Ἰ. Χρ., cf. Galatians 2:16. It is possible to take the phrase ἐκπ. Ἰ. Χρ. closely with ἡἐπαγγελία (so Ell.), the promise belonging to faith not to works (for the omission of the article after ἐπαγγελία see Colossians 1:8 note, Blass, § 47. 7 sq.); but as this hardly brings out the full meaning of ἐκ it is better to join the phrase with δοθῇ: “in order that the promise should, as a result of faith in Jesus Christ, be given to them that believe.” Had the Law brought righteousness this would not have been necessary, but the Scripture included all under sin for this express purpose. It could not be given till Christ came; cf. Galatians 3:23.

τοῖςπιστεύουσιν. In one emphatic word he sums up the argument of Gal 3:7-22.

Galatians 3:23

23. πρὸτοῦδὲἐλθεῖντὴνπίστιν. Galatians 3:22 suggests to St Paul that he should (Galatians 3:23-24) dwell on the temporary and preparative character of the Law, a point which he touched upon in Galatians 3:19 ἄχριςἂνἔλθῃκ.τ.λ. τὴνπ. The article resumes the πίστις of Galatians 3:22. It is almost “this faith of which I speak,” hardly “the dispensation of faith.”

ὑπὸνόμονἐφρουρούμεθα. φρουρ.: 2 Corinthians 11:32; Philippians 4:7; 1 Peter 1:5[110]. “We” = we Jews, who alone were under the Law. In the last two of these three passages φρουρεῖν has the connotation of protecting rather than keeping in prison. So probably here. The various laws were, as Chrysostom and Theodoret say, a wall to the Israelites, or, as Jewish writers say, a “hedge” against sins of the heathen (see Schechter, Some Aspects, pp. 206 sq.).

[110] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

συνκλειόμενοι, Galatians 3:22 note. See notes on Textual Criticism. It is the “present participle of identical action”: cf. John 6:6 (Burton, § 120). It describes the nature of the imprisonment; we were shut up.

εἰςκ.τ.λ. Preferably with the principal verb ἐφρουρούμεθα. The guard of the Law was with the aim that we should pass over into faith.

τὴνμέλλουσανπίστινἀποκαλυφθῆναι. For the construction see Romans 8:18. Contrast 1 Peter 5:1. The position of μέλλουσαν suggests the length of the period during which we were in ward. Only here, as it seems, are πίστις and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι coupled. Here also πίστις can hardly be “the dispensation of faith.”

Galatians 3:24

24. A change of metaphor from protection by a guard to a “tutor,” i.e. here the beneficent action of the Law is more directly indicated. In all probability too we should place a full stop at the end of this verse, joining Galatians 3:25 closely with the following verses. On the other hand the thought of the παιδαγωγός is too akin to much of the contents of Gal 3:25 to Galatians 4:7 to warrant our making (with Weiss) Galatians 3:24 the end of a section beginning at Galatians 3:15. It naturally leads on to νἱοί.

ὥστε. Though about to change the metaphor St Paul draws his conclusion from Galatians 3:23.

ὁνόμος. The nominative without the article would have been very ambiguous (Galatians 2:16 note), and even have suggested a law (or law), Galatians 5:23, rather than the Mosaic Law which St Paul here intends.

παιδαγωγὸςἡμῶν. παιδ.: Galatians 3:25, 1 Corinthians 4:15[111]. Much material for studying the use of the word is given in Suicer II. 543 sq. and s.v. νόμος II. 421. Lightfoot quotes a long and instructive passage from Plato, Lysis, p. 208 c. The Paedagogus looked after boys from seven to seventeen years of age, his duties being in Greek households solely moral and disciplinary, in Roman also, and perhaps chiefly, educational. Here there is no hint of instruction being given by him, but of his disciplinary protection such as φρουρεῖν might suggest. It is however unreasonable to deduce from this (with Ramsay, Gal. pp. 381 sqq.) that the Epistle was written to Churches in South Galatia where Greek influence was more prevalent.

For it is very doubtful whether the North Galatians had definitely Roman customs. Compare, for the subject generally, Appendix, Note C.

[111] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.

It is worthy of note that in the Rabbinic writings the word is used in the same disciplinary sense as here, e.g. as a king sends his son’s Paedagogue to turn him back from his evil ways, so God sends Jeremiah to Israel (Debarim R. Parasha 2 on Deuteronomy 4:30).

Thus the Law is described as exercising a sound moral influence over us with the view of bringing us to Christ. Except that Christ is not here regarded as a schoolmaster Theodoret’s words are excellent: παιδαγωγοῦγὰρἡμῖνἐπλήρωσεχρείανκαὶτῆςμὲνπροτέραςἡμᾶςἠλευθέρωσενἀσεβείας, θεογνωσίανδὲπαιδεύσας, οἶόντινισοφῷδιδασκάλῳπροσφέρειτῷδεσπότῃΧριστῷ, ἵνατέλειαπαρʼ αὐτοῦπαιδευθῶμενμαθήματα, καὶτὴνδιὰτῆςπίστεωςδικαιοσύνηνκτησώμεθα.

γἐγονεν has proved itself so in our case.

εἰςΧριστόν, not Ἰησοῦς, because not the historical person but the expected Messiah is under consideration.

ἵνα (Galatians 3:22) ἐκπίστεωςδικαιωθῶμεν, Galatians 2:16 note.

Galatians 3:25

25. To he joined with the following, not the preceding, verses. St Paul is always practical. He will, if possible, wean the Galatians from the error of going back to the Law, and he here begins to state their privileges in Christ.

ἐλθούσηςδὲτῆςπίστεως. The article is resumptive as in Galatians 3:20; Galatians 3:23. The aorist is probably not “punctiliar,” but refers to that time in the past already mentioned. But in turning to express the present effect of that coming he breaks the natural consecution of tenses.

οὐκέτιὑπὸπαιδαγωγόνἐσμεν. “Nam paedagogi utiles quidem sunt puerulis parvulis propter parvulitatem eorum. Non sunt autem necessarii, quando puer in usu effectus ad perfectam profecerit doctrinam” (Theodore of Mopsuestia). Thus the Law is not opposed to grace by preparing for it; it is only opposed to it if we stay in it after grace has come (cf. Chrys.). ἐσμεν. Probably St Paul has here passed to thinking of all believers. In Galatians 3:26 he turns directly to the Galatians.

Galatians 3:26

26. πάντεςγὰρκ.τ.λ. It has been thought that Galatians 3:26-29 are an appeal to the experience of the Galatians; having, as they have found, all these privileges, they surely cannot be any more under the Law. But it is questionable whether this does not assume too much experimental religion on the part of the Galatians, and also there is no appeal (as in Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:5) to their reception of the Spirit or the existence of miraculous or other gifts. It is better therefore to understand the verses as laying down principles. You are no longer under a paedagogue, for, as I must remind you, you are already sons of God in Christ, yes, all are received in Him, and if you are in Him then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.

πάντες. Primarily whether Jews or Gentiles, but it serves as an occasion for mentioning various conditions of life in Galatians 3:28.

γὰρ. Not merely giving he reason for saying πάντες (“why he ranks Galatians and Jews together”), but for speaking of their freedom in Galatians 3:25.

νἱοὶ. More than τέκνα (Galatians 3:7 note), and even παῖδες (a word not employed by St Paul but suggested by the previous παιδαγωγός), which in the present context would be almost equivalent to νήπιοι (Galatians 4:1).

θεοῦ. Here added not in contrast to Abraham (Galatians 3:7) as being greater, but rather as being the fundamental privilege of believers, which proves itself eventually to carry with it the further privilege (which has been so much under discussion) of being sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). But in itself it does not bear the emphasis of the sentence. That is chiefly on νἱοί (in contrast to those under a paedagogus), though formally on πάντες.

διὰτῆςπίστεως. Here probably “your faith.”

ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ: faith centred on Christ and resting in Him, Colossians 1:4; Ephesians 1:15. These parallels make it improbable that ἐνΧρ. Ἰης. are to be taken with νἱοὶθεοῦἐστε as R.V.; cf. also Galatians 3:22. The names are in this order (contrast Galatians 3:22) because Χρ. takes up Galatians 3:24, and Ἰης. is an addition expressly identifying Messiah with Jesus.

Galatians 3:27

27. In Galatians 3:27-28 St Paul shows how they obtained their sonship (Theodoret).

ὅσοι, epexegetic of πάντες. γὰρ, beginning to prove the truth of the whole statement in Galatians 3:26.

εἰςΧριστὸνἐβαπτίσθητε. Cf. Colossians 2:12. For βαπτίζομαιεἰς a person, see Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 10:2. Cf. βαπτίζ. εἰςτὸὄνομα, Matthew 28:19 al. Christ was the aim and purpose of your baptism, and through it you obtained union with even Him.

Χριστὸνἐνεδύσασθε, i.e. you appropriated the relation to God in which Christ stands, you received all that Christ is. There is no thought here of putting off the old man of sinful desires (Colossians 3:8-12), but only of leaving the previous state of pupillage by union with Christ.

Galatians 3:28

28. οὐκἔνι, “there cannot be,” see Hort on James 1:17, p. 30. St Paul mentions differences of nation, social standing, and sex.

ἸονδαῖοςοὐδὲἝλλην. In Colossians 3:11 καί, i.e. the peculiarities of both remain but are not reckoned; here peculiarities disappear in Christ.

οὐκἔνι, not repeated in Col.

δοῦλοςοὐδὲἐλεύθερος. These form a more marked division than in Col., where δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος occur only at the end of a list.

οὐκἔνιἄρσενκαὶθῆλυ, not in Col. He does not say οὐδέ, for these peculiarities must remain, but they are not regarded as forming separate entities, two of a series, when in relation to Christ. St Paul’s words strike at the root of that belief in the superiority of the male sex in religious privileges and powers which marks the lower types of religion, even Mohammadanism and popular Judaism down to our own day, included as it doubtless is under the well-known daily prayer of the Jew, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman” (Authorised Daily Prayer Book, ed. Singer, p. 6), where, as here, it follows the mention of heathen and slaves. This makes it unlikely that St Paul had in his mind the sayings current in the Greek schools, of gratitude for being a man rather than a woman. For there the mention of a dumb animal had come first.

See quotations in C. Taylor’s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 2nd edit. pp. 26, 137 sqq.

Ramsay (pp. 389 sqq.) adduces these words in support of the South Galatian theory, stating that in that district the position of woman was unusually high, and that therefore St Paul could make this statement in writing to them, for his “allusion to the equality of the sexes in the perfect form which the Church must ultimately attain would not seem to the people of these Graeco-Phrygian cities to be so entirely revolutionary and destructive of existing social conditions as it must have seemed to the Greeks,” e.g. at Corinth. This seems fanciful, especially as it does not appear that there is any reason for thinking it would have been disliked at Colossae (see above).

πάντεςγὰρ, emphatic repetition from Galatians 3:26.

ὑμεῖς, even you Galatians in all your various national, social, and even family relations.

εἷςἐστὲἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ. Apparently St Paul means “one man” as expressly in Ephesians 2:15, on which Dean Arm. Robinson writes (p. 65): “Henceforth God deals with man as a whole, as a single individual, in Christ. Not as Two Men, the privileged and unprivileged—Two, parted one from the other by a barrier in the most sacred of all the relations of life: but as One Man, united iu a peace, which is no mere alliance of elements naturally distinct, but a con-corporation, the common life of a single organism.” Wetstein has a remarkable quotation from Lucian, Toxaris 46 (§ 53), showing how others ought to treat us as though they formed one man with us, not professing gratitude to us any more than our left hand should profess gratitude to our right etc.

Chrysostom understands by it only that all believers have μίανμορφήν, ἔνατύπου, τὸντοῦΧριστοῦ; each, whether Jew or Gentile etc., walking with the form not of an angel or archangel, but of the Lord of all, showing Christ in himself. But, beautiful as this thought is, it comes short of St Paul’s meaning.

Galatians 3:29

29. εἰδὲὑμεῖςΧριστοῦ. Observe the emphasis on ὑμεῖς. If ye, ye Galatians, Gentiles though you are, are Christ’s, then etc. If you belong to Christ, as surely you do after the close relation implied in your faith in Him (Galatians 3:26), your baptism into Him, your putting of Him on (Galatians 3:27), your union in Him (Galatians 3:28), then we must conclude that you are Abraham’s seed, with all that this implies of promise and heirship. St Paul insists once more that the blessing of Abraham is only to be obtained in Christ, and is obtained in Him.

ἄρα (Galatians 2:21) τοῦΑβραὰμσπέρμαἐστέ. οὐχοἶόντετὴνμὲνκεφαλὴνἐκείνον (Abraham) νομίζεσθαι, τὸδὲσῶμαἂλλουτινός (Theodoret).

κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν. The phrase occurs absolutely elsewhere in Acts 13:23, and with the addition of ζωῆς, 2 Timothy 1:1[112]. According to promise (not “the promise,” A.V.) in contrast to the Law and its deeds.

[112] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

κληρονόμοι. The closing and emphatic word, implying possession actually received, not merely in expectancy. St Paul has mentioned heirship definitely only in Galatians 3:18, where see note, though he has implied it in Galatians 3:24-26. You want to be heirs of all that true relationship to Abraham brings—you have obtained it in Christ.

Then, characteristically enough, St Paul takes up this word κληρονόμος, and makes it a starting-point for further thoughts about God’s dealings with us in the past and present.

Note on Galatians 3:16

Dr Driver has been kind enough to call my attention to an article in the Expositor for January, 1889, in which he adopts an explanation of this passage proposed by Abraham Geiger, and accepted by Delitzsch. It is to the effect that we find in the Mishna and the Targum of Onqelos derivatives of the root zera’ which must be translated “seeds,” and mean successive generations of men. So in the Mishna, Sanh. IV. 5 (11), “his own blood, and the blood of his seeds (zar‘iyyothayw) to the end of the world.” Thus of Cain: “  ‘the bloods of thy brother cry unto me from the ground.’ The text does not say ‘blood,’ but ‘bloods’; i.e. Abel’s own blood, and the blood of his seeds (zar‘iyyothayw).” Similarly in the Targum of Onqelos on Genesis 4:10: “the blood of the seeds (zera‘ayan) which were destined to spring from thy brother.” [See also Jastrow, Talmudic Dictionary, 1903, p. 414b.] Hence it is probable (Dr Driver thinks) that to St Paul the use of the plural of substantives formed from the root zera‘, in the sense of successive generations of men, seemed to be nothing extraordinary, and, regardless of the usage of the Hebrew Bible, the Apostle therefore called attention to the fact that the actual wording of the passage in Genesis 22:18 excluded, strictly speaking, the performance of the promise in successive generations of Israelites, and required its fulfilment in one generation, which was summed up in Christ.