Moses and Abraham, or the Law Versus the Promise

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. *

An Exposition of Galatians 3:15–22 [1]

Introduction

In the preceding chapter of this letter the apostle had made a great deal over “the truth of the gospel” (cf. 2:5). He was so concerned over it that he would not yield for an hour to the attempts of the Judaizers to compel Titus to be circumcised. Further, in Antioch he did not hesitate to rebuke Peter before the entire assembly of believers for his failure to understand and follow the principles of grace. Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (2:14). The truth of the gospel, then, was an important matter for Paul, and it took precedence over “Christian love,” falsely so called. In fact, for Paul it was not biblical love, if it was not rooted in biblical truth. While believers should speak the truth in love, only love in the truth is God’s love. Sentimental, gushy “luuve,” is out, when the truth is at stake. No “sloppy agape” for him, to use Dr. J. Vernon McGee’s phrase.

Galatians expounds Paul’s “truth of the gospel” in a beautifully clear way. It consists of the gospel of “the five onlys,” as someone has put it. All of his message is founded upon:

1. Sola Scriptura, that is, the truth of the gospel comes by Scripture alone.
2. Sola Gratia, that is, a man is saved by grace alone.
3. Sola Fidei, that is, we are saved through faith alone.
4. Solo Christo, that is, the saving work has been done by Christ alone.
5. Soli Deo Gloria, that is, the whole plan results in the glorifying of God alone. Thus, soli deo gloria: to God alone be the glory!

There is another important matter that is raised in this section, and it is the use of the Law of Moses. If one is not justified by the Law, just what purpose did it serve? Different opinions regarding this matter have been held by Christians, even among those of Reformed persuasion. Lutherans have generally held that the Law’s proper use was, first, to convict the sinner of his sin and guilt, and to terrify and humble him. Then, second, the law was an aid in curbing the flesh, which is still in the believer after his conversion. [2]

John Calvin spoke of three functions of the Law. As a mirror, it revealed our sin and its curse. In the second place, the Law protected the community from unjust men, and it deterred the licentious (cf. 1 Tim. 1:9–10). Finally, the Law as its “principal use” admonished and exhorted believers, being the instrument by which they might learn more thoroughly each day the nature of the Lord’s will, and acting toward the flesh “like a whip to an idle and balky ass, to arouse it to work.” [3]

Thus, both the Lutherans and Calvinists agreed on one thing quite strongly. The Law was not designed to save but to reveal sin (cf. Rom. 3:20). As the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) has it, “Where do you learn of your sin and its wretched consequences? From the law of God.” [4]

This will come before us in this study in which the apostle, against the background of the histories of Abraham and Moses in their dealings with the people of God, seeks to show that Christian truth is the lineal descendant of the promises made to Abraham and not of the commandments given to Moses. It is a system grounded in the grace of the promise and not in the legalism of the Law. But we must not think that there is a fundamental conflict in the Word of God. God is the author of both the promise and the Law, but the two operate in different and complementary spheres. To understand them is to understand “the truth of the gospel.” To this we now turn in our exposition.

The Validity of the Promise

The Earlier Promises to Abraham, verses 15–16

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

The background of the words of Paul here is the stories of Abraham and Moses. Abraham, many hundreds of years before our Lord, was given unconditional promises to the effect that he would have a “seed,” or posterity, a land, and a great name. It was said to him that all the families of the earth would ultimately be blessed in his seed (Gen. 12:1–3). After the confirmation of these promises to Abraham’s descendants (Isaac and Jacob), a period of time until Moses. Paul mentions 430 years, the duration of Israel’s bondage in Egypt, where Abraham’s people had come in the time of Jacob (Gal. 3:17; cf. Ex. 12:40–41). Thus it was centuries after the day of Abraham that Moses was raised up by God to deliver his people from Egypt.

The dealings of God with Abraham differed from his dealings with Moses. To the former he gave unconditional promises of blessing, characterized by the expression, “I will” (cf. Gen. 12:1–3). While, of course, God dealt in grace with Moses as a man, he is best known by the fact that God gave him the Law, with its Ten Commandments, characterized by the expressions, “You shall” and “You shall not” (Ex. 20:1–17). Thus, grace, as seen in the promises, stands out in the relationship between God and the patriarch from Ur of the Chaldees, while law, as seen in the Commandments, stands out in his relation with Moses. One is the religion of divine grace, and the other is the religion of human merit.

Now, in this passage, it is the apostle’s contention that Christianity stands in the line of Abraham and the promise and not in the line of Moses, although the Law has its divinely intended use and function. God is the author of both, and therefore there is a purpose for both. This Paul develops in verses fifteen through eighteen of the text.

Paul draws his opening argument from the human example of contracts, or wills, among men. I prefer the translation “covenant” (AV, NASB, NIV, ESV) in verse fifteen, since that is the force of the Greek word διαθήκη (diathēkē) uniformly in the New Testament, even in Hebrews 9:15–17. [5] The point of Paul in verse fifteen is simply this: contracts once agreed to by men cannot be modified, except by mutual consent. There are some minor questions about this, but Paul’s point is sustained no matter how they might be settled. His argument is an a fortiori one, a familiar one with Paul, that is, if a man’s covenant cannot be set aside or added to, then surely the covenants of God are unchangeable. [6]

The verb ἐπιδιατάσσεται (epidiatassetai, “adds”) is interesting. It refers to the addition of new provisions, such as our codicils to legal documents. The Judaizers, in adding the codicil of circumcision to the divine way of salvation by faith alone, might seem to some to be only adding a few harmless provisions to the plan of salvation. In reality, however, they were annulling the promise of salvation by grace, for one cannot mix faith and works. And God’s covenant with Abraham was unconditional—there were “no strings attached.” [7] Further, by suggesting that circumcision should be added to the compact, the Judaizers were in reality crediting God with a breach of faith, an action that even men would condemn in their ordinary dealings with one another. No—the covenant of promises that had been concluded with Abraham hundreds of years earlier is still in force.

The sixteenth verse is parenthetical, as the words of verse seventeen indicate. “What I am saying is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.” This does not refer to verse sixteen but to the reference to a ratified covenant in verse fifteen.

The sixteenth verse, a rather difficult one in some ways, cites the passage about the covenant promises from Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; and 24:7. It is to be noted that the promises are said by Paul to have been spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Abraham is seen as a man related to others who are in him.

It has to be objected that Paul’s interpretation of the reference to Abraham’s seed, “and to your seed” (καὶ τῷ σπέρματί [singular] kai tō spermati) is fanciful and sophistical exegesis. [8] This slander of Pauline argument is based upon the claim that the singular word seed is in the Old Testament a collective singular and, thus, cannot be made to refer to an individual, such as he does here when he applies it to Christ. Even Burton fails to see any solution to the problem of Paul’s exegesis, concluding that the text has been corrupted. [9]

However, the word seed is collective in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and it may refer to an individual in both testaments as well. The word represented a restricted posterity and sometimes an individual, just as here. In verse nineteen it refers to an individual, Christ, while in verse twenty-nine the same singular word refers to all who are in Christ. Thus, Paul found in the Old Testament passage a word that was not a simple plural, but a collective singular and, knowing the possibilities of its meaning, refers it to the ultimate Seed, Christ, the real inheritor of the Abrahamic blessing as the representative of those in him. [10]

One might ask why the apostle uses the plural seeds (“He does not say, ‘And to seeds’” [καὶ τοῒ̑ σπέρμασιν (plural), kai tois spermasin̂), since by ordinary usage it could not have that sense, and it was not so used in the Old Testament of the people of God. Well, the Greeks did so use it, and we should remember that the Galatians were Gentiles. Thus, Paul uses the Old Testament in a very legitimate way and finds in the use of the singular seed, rather than the plural, a word that refers to Christ ultimately. All in him share with him, too.

The Later Law of Moses, verses 17–18

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The train of thought is picked up again from verse fifteen, and Paul applies the illustration from human life given there. God’s covenant was duly confirmed, and the Law came at least 430 years later. [11] Among men there is no annulling of a duly confirmed covenant. Therefore, there can be no annulling of the Abrahamic Covenant, a covenant made by God, not by man. Thus, the Abrahamic promises, which rest upon the principle of grace, are still valid. “These hundreds of years confound all Judaizers,” Lenski points out. [12] The singular “promise” may be a personal reference to Christ.

The “for” (γάρ, gar) of verse eighteen introduces further explanation. Paul argues that if the inheritance were on the basis of Law, as the Judaizers claim, then it would not be on the basis of a gracious promise. But, as all know, God gave the inheritance to Abraham and his seed by promise. Thus, inheritance by the Mosaic Law and works is excluded. Paul cannot allow any compromise between the two covenants or between the two principles of grace and works (cf. Rom. 11:6).

The “inheritance” is that which was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant, and since the word is so suitable to describe an inheritance of land, it is doubtless that to which it refers (cf. Gen. 12:1, 7; 15:18–21).

The last words of verse eighteen state the positive side of the matter: “but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.” In effect, the Judaizers, by claiming that one must keep the Law to obtain the promised blessing of God, are saying that, while Abraham received the blessing by God’s promise, and through faith alone on his part, the Galatians shall not obtain it without law-works. They would cancel God’s promise by introducing law-keeping as a way of salvation. The emphatic position of the word “Abraham” in the Greek text adds weight to the point. Literally the clause reads, “but to Abraham God granted it by promise.” The verb χαρίζομαι (charizomai, “has granted”) means to give in a gracious manner, being related to the Greek word for grace (χάρις, charis). The perfect tense (κεχάρισται, kecharistai) stresses the fact that the past act of God in giving Abraham the promise has continuing results—results that abide to the present. The promise to Abraham remains valid, even after the giving of the Law in Moses’ day and the setting aside of the Law in the cross of Christ. The conclusion reached is a twofold one: (1) the inheritance cannot, therefore, be ours on the grounds of the Law; (2) the present age of the church is a continuation of the age in which Abraham lived, the age before the giving of the Mosaic Law. Put in the words of dispensationalists, the Age of the church is a continuation of the Age of Promise. It is the Age of the Law, not the Church Age, that is an intercalation in the program of God.

The Purpose of the Law

The Question, verse 19a—Why the Law then?

The apostle has now denied the Law just about every privilege claimed for it. It is inferior to the promise, and it is unable to justify. That naturally raises the question, a very weighty one for a Jewish man unwilling to deny the Law its commonly accepted sufficiency for these things—“Why the law then?” The query relates to the significance of the Law. How can any theology be correct when it denies the Law all saving power? The apostle must have often had to face this question. It is, in essence, the same problem that he deals with in Romans 5:20–21.

The Answer, verses 19b–20

It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.

The apostle’s answer is that the Law “was added because of transgressions.” The verb, “was added” (προστίθημι, prostithēmi) is not the same verb that is rendered by “adds” (ἐπιδιατάσσομαι, epidiatassomai) in verse fifteen. That word is a technical word for adding fresh provisions to a document. [13] The word used here refers to the adding of something alongside—not to—something else (cf. Rom. 5:20). [14] The reference is to the adding of the Law alongside the promise; that is, the Mosaic Law was given to people who were at the time living by the promise.

The expression “because of transgressions,” which is also the rendering of the KJV and the NIV, is an incorrect translation of the Greek. The Greek word χάριν (charin, “because”) may either be causal or purposive. Romans 4:15 shows that it cannot be causal here, for the Law could not be given to curb or check transgressions when transgressions did not exist until the Law was given. [15] It would be better to render the expression “for the sake of transgressions;” in other words, it was given to clearly manifest sin’s rebellious character as an overstepping of the divine Law. [16] Paul’s intention here, as in verse twenty-four and Romans 7:13, is to show that sin is intensified by the coming of the Law. [17] Apart from the Law, sin lay dead (cf. Rom. 7:8). “Therefore it is through the law,” Berkouwer says, “that sin is made to be alive. Through the law sin is vitalized and actualized, agitated and inflamed. [18] This is the issue that engaged the Apostle Paul: the law and the increase of man’s sin.” [19]

Two final inferiorities of the Law are mentioned in the remaining words of the verse. First, the Law had only a transitory significance. It was added “until.” The promise, on the other hand, abides. It may be granted that there is still a use for the Law (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8–10), but its status before God is no longer what it was in Moses’ day. Second, the Law was given by the agency of angels, into the hands of a mediator (Moses), a statement intended to depreciate the Law by contrasting its twofold mediation with the direct divine dispensing of the promise to Abraham (cf. Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:17; Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2). While angels and a man are sufficient for the giving of the Law, the apostle suggests that the Triune God reserved the giving of the promise to himself, which he dispensed in gracious goodness.

There are, it is said, between 250 and 300 interpretations of verse twenty, although it is difficult to find more than a few in the commentaries. For such a supposedly disputed passage there is an amazing amount of agreement among its interpreters. The verse is probably a general statement about mediation. The mediator, by his very name, stands between two persons or groups. Thus, the Law with its mediation is a contingent contract involving two parties, God and the nation. It was valid only while both fulfilled the terms of it. In the case of the promise, however, God is one. He is everything, and the recipient is nothing. [20] The promise, therefore, is unconditional; there are no strings attached to it. God is the promiser and the mediator, and its benefits are guaranteed. What a magnificent expression of grace in his dealings with men!

The Harmony of Law and Promise

The Question, verse 21a—Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God?

Another natural question arises at this point in the argument. If the Law was not designed to save, but to reveal sin in its horrible guilt, is the Law then against the promises of God?

The Answer, verses 21b–22

May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The apostle’s first response is his familiar, “May it never be!” But then he explains, as the “for” (γάρ, gar) indicates. He affirms by a contrary-to-fact supposition that, if there had been a law given which could impart life, then in truth righteousness would be by the Law. The implication of this is that the Law does not contradict the promises, for it does not operate in the same sphere, namely, that of giving life.

The Law judges man on the basis of works, the promise on the basis of faith. The two things epitomize two ways of dealing with men. Burton illustrates this in this manner:

Thus one may rightly say that the courts are not in conflict with the pardoning power; for though one sentences and the other releases, each is operative in its own sphere, the one saying whether the accused is guilty, the other whether he shall be punished; or that a father who first ascertains by careful inquiry whether his child has disobeyed his commands, and pronounces him guilty, and then using this very sentence of guilty to bring him to repentance, and discovering that he is repentant assures him of forgiveness and fellowship, is in no conflict with himself. [21]

The contrast between the unreal hypothesis of verse twenty-one and the actual facts of the matter is introduced by the “but” (ἀλλά, alla) of verse twenty-two. The Law does not provide pardon; it simply jails the sinner, so that there is no escape (cf. Luke 5:6). The Scripture referred to is probably Deuteronomy 27:26 (cf. v. 10) or Psalm 143:2 (cf. 2:16). To be “under sin” is to be under its power. It is the Law that vivifies sin, revealing in it its guilt-generating reality (cf. 1 Cor. 15:56, “the power of sin is the law”). The purpose clause (“so that the promise of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe”) points to the divine intention in the function of the Law, namely, that it might be demonstrated that man cannot be justified on the ground of merit, but only on the ground of faith. The twofold mention of belief in the clause underscores the fact that justification is by faith alone.

Conclusion

Moses and Abraham, then, epitomize the two ways of salvation. One is man’s way, salvation by human effort. The other is salvation by grace through the effort of Another, Jesus Christ, and it is the way of God. Shall it be the “you shalls” and “you shall nots” of Moses or the “I wills” that God spoke through Abraham? We shall use Moses correctly only when we, through him, see the guilt of our sin, its terrible rebellion against God, and its curse and death-dealing power. The Law, then, does not make men better, but worse, as Luther said. It is when they are in that state of humiliation, terror, and godly fear that they become fit subjects for the coming of “the truth of the gospel,” that Christ has provided a way of release for prisoners of sin (cf. Gal. 3:13). Paul’s message to sinners is that they are to flee to Christ and to Christ alone.

* Lewis Johnson went home to be with the Lord on January 28, 2004. Beginning with the second issue of The Emmaus Journal (vol. 1, no. 2), Dr. Johnson has contributed an article to every issue of the magazine that has been published to date. Happily he had completed the entire series on Galatians before his death, and the editors also have several other articles of his to publish, DV. He regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas—a church he helped found in 1962—for more than thirty years. He retired from active preaching in 2001. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1949–78) and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1980–85). At the time of his death he was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary. He is survived by his wife, Martha.

Notes

1. This is article eight in a sixteen-part series, “Expositonal Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. Cf. John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934), 477–80.
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.7.12, ed., John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:361.
4. The Heidelberg Catechism, Question and Answer 3, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 2:429.
5. Some modern English versions translate diaqhvkh with the word “will” (NRSV) or “will and testament” (REB) in Galatians 3:15. In classical Greek and the papyri the word was in common use for a will (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST [London: Inter Varsity Press, 1968], 87; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 169). However, the Septuagint regularly translates the Hebrew word for covenant (tyrIB]) with diaqhvkh (270 of the 286 occurrences), and that seems to have controlled Paul’s use of the term. Longenecker argues, nevertheless, that Paul is working from the secular nuance of “will” or “testament” to the biblical nuance of “covenant” (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC [Dallas: Word, 1990], 128).
6. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 88; Longenecker, Galatians, 128.
7. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 88.
8. “There is no need to make heavy weather of Paul’s insistence that the biblical text has spevrmati (singular) and not spevrmasin (plural). The essence of his argument can be expressed quite acceptably if it is pointed out that the biblical text uses a collective singular (‘offspring’) which could refer either to a single descendant or to many descendants” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 172).
9. Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 509.
10. “Later in v. 29 Paul treats “seed” as a collective, as he does also in Rom. 4:13–18. So, it seems that Paul is here invoking a corporate solidarity understanding of the promise to Abraham wherein the Messiah, as the true descendant of Abraham and the true representative of the nation, is seen as the true ‘seed’ of Abraham—as are, of course, also the Messiah’s own, as v. 29 insists” (Longenecker, Galatians, 132).
11. According to verse 17 the Law appeared in history 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham. The figure “430 years” is that found in Exodus 12:40 to describe the length of time the people of Israel lived in Egypt. In Acts 7:6, however, Stephen gives the length of the Egyptian bondage as “four hundred years,” the figure given in Genesis 15:13. Harold W. Hoehner explained that the two different figures included different periods of time: (1) The “430 years” covers the time from the confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 35:9–15 (1875 b.c.) to the Exodus (1445 b.c.). (2) The “four hundred years” covers the time from the entrance of Jacob and his family into Egypt (Gen. 40, 1845 b.c.) to the Exodus (“The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage,” BibSac 126 [Oct., 1969]: 306-16).
12. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937), 162.
13. BDAG, s.v. “ejpidiatavssomai,” 370.
14. BDAG, s.v. “prostivqhmi,” 885.
15. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 144–45.
16. The NASB margin reads, “for the sake of defining transgressions.” The REB translates, “It was added to make wrongdoing a legal offence.” C. E. B. Cranfield paraphrases, “in order that there might be transgressions, the conscious disobeying of definite commandments” (“St. Paul and the Law,” SJT 17 [1964]: 46).
17. G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, trans. Philip C. Holtrop (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, 149–86.
18. Andrew Jukes somewhere wrote, “Satan would have us to prove ourselves holy by the law, which God gave to prove us sinners” (quoted by Stott, The Message of Galatians, 90).
19. Berkouwer, Sin, 172. Ronald Y. K. Fung cites four interpretations of the expression “because of transgressions” [The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 159–60]: (1) To curb or check transgressions [J. C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972), 52, 78]. (2) To create and reveal transgressions [“where there is no law, there also is no violation,” Rom. 4:15], i.e., by the promulgation of specific enactments creating a corresponding category of violations [Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 46; William Kelly, Lectures on The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians (London: Morrish, 1865), 78; Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1974); Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 175; J. Schneider, “paravbasiÇ,” TDNT, 5:740; W. Günther, “Sin,” NIDNTT, 3:585]. (3) to evoke and increase transgressions, i.e., to stimulate latent sin into activity [Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 138; Berkouwer, Sin, 172; A. Oepke, “mesivthÇ,” TDNT, 4:618]. (4) to awaken a conviction of sin and guilt and thus be led to the Savior [William Hendriksen, Exposition of Galatians, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 140–41; Clark H. Pinnock, Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 45]. View # 4 is ruled out by Paul’s presentation of the function of the Law as a negative one. Further, his concern here is to present the objective facts of the history of salvation and not the subjective development of faith in the individual. View # 1 is ruled out by Paul’s treatment of the function of the Law elsewhere (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 7:7, 13). It is difficult to choose between views 2 and 3 but, as Fung notes, view # 3 logically includes view # 2. The view adopted in this essay combines views 2 and 3.
20. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 147.
21. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 193.