Galatians 3:15–22

The value that a testator's death has for confirming his testament is final, since he cannot then change his mind. This is the value that the immutability of God's promise has in confirming the inheritance of Abraham, whose faith was reckoned for righteousness.

The apostle, who was "made all things to all men" … is also made a fool for the Galatians, whom he a little while before called fools. For he does not employ the arguments that he used with the Romans but simpler ones and such as the stupid could understand.… [He means,] "What I am about to say I say not according to God. I do not speak with regard to the deepest wisdom and those who can eat solid food but with regard to those who feed on milk because of the tenderness of their stomachs."

(V. 15 seqq.) Brothers, I speak in human terms: yet no one rejects or adds to a man's covenant, which has been confirmed. The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'and to seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'and to your seed,' who is Christ. Now I say this: the covenant, which was confirmed by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on a promise. But God gave to Abraham a promise. The Apostle, who became all things to all people in order to gain everyone, is a debtor to Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and the foolish, even to the Galatians whom he had just called foolish. For he did not use the same arguments with them as he did with the Romans, but simpler ones; things that even fools could understand and almost from the street corner. And so that it would not seem that he did it out of ignorance and not skill, he appeases the wise reader beforehand, and he tempers what he is going to say with a preface: Brothers, I speak as a human being. For what I am about to say, I do not speak according to God: I do not speak according to hidden wisdom, and those who can eat solid food, but according to those who are nourished by the tender milk of the stomach, and are unable to bear great things. (1 Corinthians 5). Therefore, to the Corinthians, among whom fornication was heard, and such fornication that even among the Gentiles, he says: I speak, and not the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:12). And to the same in the second [letter]: What I am saying, I do not speak according to the Lord, but as if in foolishness (II Cor. XI, 17). Some think that when he is about to discuss examples from the testament of a man and the death of the testator and other things of human similarity, he said: Brothers, I say according to man: although it seems to me, and for this reason indeed that they think, but especially because of what follows being stated (or promised), namely: He does not say 'and to seeds' as if in many, but as if in one, and to your seed, which is Christ. While traversing all the scriptures in meaning and memory, I have never found the seed of writing in the plural number, but whether in a positive or negative sense, it is always in the singular number. Furthermore, the following is inferred: But I say that this testament is confirmed by God, if anyone diligently compares the Hebrew volumes and other editions with the translation of the Septuagint interpreters, they will find where the testament is written, not to sound like testament, but a covenant, which is called 'Berith' in the Hebrew language. Therefore, it is clear that the Apostle did what he promised, and he did not use hidden meanings to the Galatians, but rather everyday and lowly things that could displease the prudent (I speak in human terms unless I add this). To calculate the years from the time when the Lord spoke to Abraham, saying, 'And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed' (Genesis 22:18), until the lawgiver Moses: whether they are four hundred and thirty, or how the Lord promises to Abraham in Genesis that his descendants shall come out of the land of bondage after four hundred years. For it is not a small matter, and sought after by many, I do not know if it was invented by someone else. Also, that which is read in the same book about Thamar and her two little ones (Genesis 38), that is, that the first one called Zara extended his hand, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on it, and then, as he pulled his hand back inside, the hand of the one named Phares was extended in its place. It is fitting that this demonstrates how Israel, in the work of the Law, extended his hand and contracted it, polluted by the blood of the prophets and of the Savior himself. But afterwards, the people of the Gentiles burst forth, because of whom it is often said to have been destroyed, and the middle wall that had been between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down, so that there would be one flock and one shepherd, and there would be glory, and honor, and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. However, the simple meaning that is hidden in this passage has this force, that the Apostle teaches that the promises that were made to Abraham cannot be destroyed by the Law, which was given afterwards, and that the later things cannot take priority over the earlier ones, since the promises were given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before, so that all nations would be blessed in him. But the observation is, that whoever had done it, would live in it, after four hundred and thirty years Moses gave it on Mount Sinai. On the contrary, this could be said: Why then was it necessary to give the Law after so much time of promise, when even with the Law given, the suspicion of a broken promise could arise, and the Law given would not be profitable while the promise remained? The Apostle, foreseeing this question, poses and explains it to himself in the following, saying:

"To speak after the manner of men" means to use human examples. Having founded his argument on the Scriptures, on the miracles wrought among themselves, on the sufferings of Christ, and on the Patriarch, he proceeds to common usages; and this he does invariably, in order to sweeten his discourse, and render it more acceptable and intelligible to the duller sort. Thus he argues with the Corinthians, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof?" and again with the Hebrews, "For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?" One may find him dwelling with pleasure on such arguments. In the Old Testament God does the same thing in many instances, as, "Can a woman forget her sucking child?" and again, "Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" and in Hosea, He represents a husband set at nought by his wife. This use of human examples frequently occurs in types also, as when the prophet takes the girdle, and goes down to the potter's house. The meaning of the present example is, that Faith is more ancient than the Law, which is later and only temporary, and delivered in order to pave the way for Faith. Hence he says, "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;" above he had called them "foolish," now he calls them "brethren," at once chiding and encouraging them. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed." If a man, says he, makes a covenant, does any one dare to come afterwards and overturn it, or subjoin aught to it? for this is the meaning of "or addeth thereto." Much less then when God makes a covenant; and with whom did God make a covenant?

Since from the signs given by them, and from the revealing of the Holy Spirit, and from the cross of Christ, and from those things by which Abraham was saved, faith was shown to save, and not the law; now he seeks to persuade them by a human example. For the phrase "according to men" stands for "according to a human argument and example." And he rightly calls them brothers, having called them foolish. For it is necessary sometimes to rebuke sharply, and sometimes to soften.

"a human-confirmed covenant." See what he wishes to prove by the example of the covenant. "I will bless," says God to Abraham, "and in his seed shall all the nations be blessed." (Gen. 22:18) Now the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, is Christ. The law was given four hundred and thirty years later. If then, he says, the law committed the blessings and righteousness, the promise and the covenant of God to Abraham become void. But a man's covenant no one annuls; and the covenant of God is annulled, and it lasted a long time, namely four hundred and thirty years. For if that one promised to bless through Christ, but the law instead of Christ blesses, then the covenant of God to Abraham is annulled.

— [PHOTIUS] "Which he says has been confirmed." For it was authorized by an oath. And he says precisely, "has been confirmed." For the nullified thing is also transferred, just as the law itself, into the Gospel. It is ordered additionally, that is, it adds on. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

"But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men.

For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament.

He called them foolish above, but now he calls them brothers—there restraining, and here consoling. I am going to present you, he says, a human example.

Paul wants to show that faith is a covenant more ancient than the law, and that it would be unjust to prefer the law over it. He brought an example to illustrate this. If, he says, a man made a testament, would anyone, coming afterward, dare to pervert it or alter it, that is, add anything to it? All the more must this be understood in relation to God.

Having proved by authority that the Law does not justify and is not necessary for justification, which is through faith, the Apostle then proves the same point with human reasons. Concerning this he does four things:

First, he mentions a human custom;

Secondly, he touches on a divine promise (v. 16);

Thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v. 17);

Fourthly, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises (v. 18).

He says therefore: It is clear that up to now I have been speaking according to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which came not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit, as is said in 2 Peter (1:21). But now "I speak after the manner of man" and after the manners which human reason and human custom follow. Here, indeed, we have an argument to show that in discussions bearing on faith, we may use any truth of any science: "If thou seest in the number of the captives a beautiful woman and lovest her and wilt have her to wife, thou shalt bring her into thy house," i.e., if you are pleased with worldly wisdom and science, bring it within your boundaries, "and she shall shave her hair, and pare her nails," i.e., you shall cut away all erroneous opinions (Deut 21:11). This is why in many places in his epistles the Apostle uses the authority of the Gentiles; for example: "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor 15:33), and "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies" (Tit. 1:12).

Or: although such reasons be fruitless and weak, because, as is said in Psalm 93 (v. 11): "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain," yet a man's "testament, if it be confirmed, no one despiseth nor addeth to" it, because nothing human has as much power to bind as a man's last will. But someone would be scorning it if he were to say that a man's will, confirmed by his death and by witnesses, had no validity. Therefore, if no one scorns a testament of this kind by saying that it should not be heeded or by modifying it, much less may anyone scorn the testament of God or modify it and weaken it by adding or removing anything: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (Rev 22:18); "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it" (Deut 4:2).

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise." And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Passing my eyes and memory over all the Scriptures, I nowhere find offsprings written in the plural but everywhere the singular, whether in a good sense or a bad.… If anyone carefully collates the Hebrew Scriptures with the [Greek version of the] Seventy, he will find that where testament is written, what is meant is not "testament" but "covenant." … Whence it is clear that the apostle has done as he promised, not using deeper meanings but everyday ones, and even trivial ones which (if he had not said beforehand "I speak humanly") might have displeased the intelligent.

Thus God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that in his seed the blessing should come upon the heathen; and this blessing the Law cannot turn aside. As this example was not in all respects appropriate to the matter in hand, he introduces it thus, "I speak after the manner of men," that nothing might be deduced from it derogatory to the majesty of God. But let us go to the bottom of this illustration. It was promised Abraham that by his seed the heathen should be blessed; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ; four hundred and thirty years after came the Law; now, if the Law bestows the blessings even life and righteousness, that promise is annulled. And so while no one annuls a man's covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable.

"Now the promises." As if they had been pledged.

For this fact-that Gentiles are admissible to God's Law-is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that "the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket," or else as "dust out of a threshing-floor: " although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that "in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth; " and that out of the womb of Rebecca "two peoples and two nations were about to proceed," -of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours.

"To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not `to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, `to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained.

So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through" Abraham's seed, which is Christ," and was superinducing grace over the law, made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness.

The words and to his offspring are found to be strictly fulfilled in Christ in their straightforward sense, since he is Abraham's offspring by nature, as are all those who derive their stock from that source. We, believing in him, are therefore enrolled as children of Abraham and thereby receive fellowship in the blessing. The result is that what appears to be said to one can in fact be understood commonly of many, insofar as all who derive from that source are of Abraham. This promise is completely fulfilled in Christ in the light of the actual events.

The promise made to Abraham is called a testament in the ancient Scripture and so cannot suffer addition, subtraction or dissolution through the imposition of the Mosaic law, which was given a very long time after Abraham. Now the promise was that the God of all would bless the nations through the offspring of Abraham. And this offspring is Christ the Lord, since the promise found its destination in him through whom the nations received a blessing. But all the others, such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah and in a word all who traced their descent from Israel, were called his offspring according to nature, but [this genetic fact] is not what brought the fount of blessings to the nations.… The fact that those men too trace their race to Abraham does not mean that they are rightly called his offspring, but this man has that appellation in the proper sense, as being the only One through whom, according to the promise, God has bestowed blessing on the nations.

And God gave a testament to Abraham, that in his seed the nations would be blessed. And his seed is Christ, because it did not say "seeds," lest you think of the Jews and Ishmaelites descended from him, but simply "in seed," which, as stated, is Christ.

Then when he says, "To Abraham were the promises made," he takes up the promise God made to Abraham, which is, as it were, the testament of God.

First, he explains this promise or testament;

Secondly, he discloses the truth contained therein (v. 16): "He saith not: And to his seeds."

He says therefore: "To Abraham were the promises made." As if to say: As the testament of a man is valid, so the divine promises are valid. But did God make any promises before the Law? He did; because "To Abraham" who lived before the time of the Law "the promises were spoken," i.e., made, "and to his seed," by God. However, they were made to Abraham as the one for whom they would be fulfilled, and to his seed as the one through whom they would be fulfilled. And he says, "promises," using the plural, because the promise that his seed would be blessed contained a number of things: or because the same thing, namely, eternal happiness, was promised to him on a number of occasions. For example, "In thee shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:3); "Look up to heaven and number the stars if thou canst. So shall thy seed be" (Gen 15:5). Again: "To thy seed will I give this land" (Gen 15:18); "I will bless thee and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven" (Gen 22:17). These promises then, are God's testament, as it were, i.e., a decree concerning the inheritance to be given to Abraham and his seed.

The meaning of this testament he explains when he says, "He saith not: 'And to his seeds, as of many; but as of one: And to thy seed.'" He explains this according to the very spirit in which the testament was made. And this is obvious from the words of the testament: "He saith not: 'and to his seeds, as of many," i.e., as He would do, if it were valid for many: "but as of one: 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ," because He is the only one through Whom and in Whom all could be blessed. For He alone and exclusively is the one who does not lie under the curse of guilt, in spite of the fact that He deigned to be made a curse for us. Hence it is said, "I am alone until I pass" (Ps 140:10); and again "There is none that doth good, no not one" (Ps 13:3); "One man among a thousand I have found" (namely, Christ, Who had been without any sin), "a woman among them all I have not found," who would be entirely immune from all sin, at least original or venial (Eccl. 7:29).

Once the promise had been established, the law was given subsequently, not so that it could undermine the promise but so that it might point to what was to be fulfilled and when it would come.

If the law justifies, Abraham was not justified, since he lived long before the law. Since they cannot say this, they are forced to admit that a man is justified not by works of the law but by faith. And he compels us to understand that all the ancients who were justified were justified from the same faith. For as we are saved by believing partly in a past event, that is, the first coming of the Lord, and partly in a future one, that is, his second coming, they believed the whole of it, that is, both comings as events. The Holy Spirit reveals this for their salvation.

"Now this I say: a covenant." For the sake of clarity he continues the discourse.

"by God in Christ." For the promise was to Christ. For he said, "In your seed all the nations shall be blessed." For this is, "in you." And the seed of Abraham according to the flesh is Christ.

— [PHOTIUS] "which came four hundred and thirty years later." Four hundred and thirty years are therefore gathered: from Abraham's seventy-fifth year to the one hundredth (when Isaac was born) are counted twenty-five years; Isaac was sixty years old (when Jacob was born); Jacob was ninety-five years old (when he begot Joseph); Joseph was one hundred and ten years old; the years spent in Egypt were one hundred and forty-four (from Joseph's death, according to the translation of the Seventy Translators, as appears in Exodus 12): together four hundred and thirty-four. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

In what way, then, can the law annul this covenant, agreement, and promise, so that the nations would receive blessing not in Christ but through the commandments of the law? For this would be nothing other than the overthrow of the promise, which is absurd.

Then when he says, "Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God," he draws his conclusion. Here let us see, in order, what it is that he says. He says therefore that this is what God promised to Abraham. But this is a "testament," i.e., a promise that he would obtain an inheritance: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda" (Jer 31:31). He says, "confirmed" (in keeping with what he said above, namely, "a man's testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it") "by God," i.e., by the One who promised. "The testament was confirmed," namely, with an oath: "By my own self have I sworn" (Gen 22:16); "That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort" (Heb 6:18). This testament, I say, the Law doth not disannul: "the law," namely, "which was made" and given by God through Moses: "For the law was given by Moses" (Jn 1:17) "after four hundred thirty years." Then, as if to explain what he had said, he adds, "doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect." For the aforesaid testament would have been disannulled if the promise made to Abraham were set aside, i.e., made fruitless, as though the seed promised to Abraham were not enough to bless the Gentiles. But as a matter of fact, the promises made to the patriarchs were not set aside by Christ but confirmed: "For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom 15:8); "For all the promises of God are in him 'It is'" (2 Cor 1:20). "After four hundred thirty years"—this concords with Exodus (12:40): "The abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt was four hundred thirty years," and with Acts (7:6): "And God said to him," i.e., to Abraham, "that his seed should sojourn in a strange country and that they shall bring them under bondage four hundred thirty years."

But against this, it is said in Genesis (15:13): "Know thou before that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage and afflict them four hundred years."

I answer that if you count the years between the first promise made to Abraham (Genesis Ch. 12), and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt (when the Law was given) there will be four hundred thirty years, as is written here and in Exodus (Ch. 12) and Acts (Ch. 7). But if you begin to count from the birth of Isaac, concerning which Genesis (Ch. 21) speaks, there are only four hundred five years. For twenty-five years elapsed between the promise made to Abraham and the birth of Isaac: for Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left his own country and the first promise was made to him, as is recorded in Ch. 21 of Genesis; and he was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, as is recorded in the same chapter. That there were four hundred five years between the birth of Isaac and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is proved by the fact that Isaac was sixty years old when he begot Jacob, as is had in Genesis (Ch. 25). Jacob, on the other hand, was one hundred thirty years old when he entered Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 47). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to Jacob's entry into Egypt were one hundred ninety years. Now Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 41). After that there were seven years of plenty and two of want; and it was after that that Jacob came to Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 45). But Joseph lived one hundred ten years, as is mentioned in the final chapter of Genesis. If thirty-nine years be subtracted from this there remain seventy-one years. Consequently from the birth of Isaac to Joseph's death there were two hundred sixty-one years. Furthermore, the children of Israel remained in Egypt for one hundred forty-four more years after Joseph's death, as Rabanus says in a Gloss on the Acts (Ch. 7). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law four hundred five years elapsed. However, the scripture in Genesis (Ch. 17) was not concerned with minutiae. Or it can be said that during Isaac's fifth year Ishmael was cast forth, leaving Isaac the sole heir of Abraham. Reckoning from this date, we have our four hundred years.

The Jews maintain two opposing tenets. For in no way and by no argument can they be persuaded that the promise to Abraham was rendered void by the law, and they are right. But in their short-sighted vanity they maintain another contrary principle, thinking that justification could not come without the practice of the law. They know that Abraham, who is the type [of justification], was justified through faith alone, without the practice of the law.… The heirs to the promise of Abraham are therefore those who are his successors in the adoption of the faith by which Abraham was blessed and justified. The testimony of the promise to Abraham is therefore called a covenant [to signify] that after his death there would be heirs in the promise, made sons of Abraham through faith.

"For if the inheritance is of the law." He himself so interpreted it. For if the blessing came through the law and not through Christ, the promise and covenant of God is annulled and terminated. He gave by the promise. He gave the blessing, he says, by the promise of God and not by the law.

If the law, he says, grants blessing and makes heirs of life and righteousness, then the promise given to Abraham is consequently abolished and destroyed. But this would make no sense: the law appeared later, so how can it annul a covenant that existed before it? But do not hasten to press this entire example too strictly. For this reason he also said: "I speak in human terms," that is, I am giving a human example. Therefore it is not surprising if it cannot be fully applied to the divine.

Then when he says, "For, if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," he shows how from the foregoing it follows that the Law would nullify the promises, if the Law were necessary for justification or for the blessing to come to the Gentiles. He says therefore: The promise would indeed be disannulled, if the Law were necessary; for "if the inheritance," namely, of Abraham's blessing, "be of the law, it is no more of promise," i.e., of the seed promised to Abraham. For if the seed promised to Abraham was enough to obtain the inheritance of the blessing, there would not be justification through the Law. He rejects the consequent, when he says, "But God gave it to Abraham," i.e., He promised that He would give it; but the promise was as sure as if it had been fulfilled then and there, "by promise," i.e., through the seed promised. Therefore the inheritance, i.e., the blessing (about which it is said in 1 Peter (3:9): "For unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing") is not of the Law.

By "angels" he means God's messengers—that is, Moses, [Joshua] son of Nun and the other prophets up to John the Baptist. … Through these, therefore, the Law and Prophets are ordained and disposed by God in the hand, that is, the power, of the Savior. For he is the Mediator, the reconciler of God and humanity, so that he may save whom he will out of those who have received the law from the angels.

Here arises a rather pertinent question: if faith justifies and even the former saints, who were justified before God, were justified through it, what need was there for the law to be given?… The law was given to a proud people, but the grace of love cannot be received by any but the humble. Without this grace the precepts of the law cannot possibly be fulfilled. Israel was rendered humble by transgression, so that it might seek grace and might not arrogantly suppose itself to be saved by its own merits; and so it would be righteous, not in its own power and might but by the hand of the Mediator who justifies the ungodly.

Now every dispensation of the Old Testament was given through angels, the Holy Spirit working in them and in the very Word of truth, though not yet incarnate, yet never departing from some true ordering of providence. This law was given through angels, sometimes acting in their own person, sometimes in that of God, as was also the way of the prophets.… The children [of Abraham] were put in the hand of [Christ] the Mediator so that he himself might liberate them from sin when they were forced by their transgression of the law to admit that they needed grace and mercy from the Lord.

The purely intellectual vision existed in the minds of the angels and of the Lawmaker. For the Law was delivered by angels. Angels gave it forth, composed it, for they could see the pure truth in the eternal light. Moses was raised up to this vision more completely than any other prophet.

We are also led by the hand through the reformed powers of the soul itself, and this by gratuitous virtues, spiritual senses, and mental ecstasies, as is evident from the fourth step. We are led by the hand no less through hierarchical operations, namely of purgation, illumination, and perfection of human minds, through the hierarchical revelations of sacred Scriptures given to us through Angels, according to that saying of the Apostle, that the Law was given through Angels by the hand of a Mediator.

Whence the law was rightly said to have been given by Moses, being a rule of right and wrong; and we may call it with accuracy the divine ordinance, inasmuch as it was given by God through Moses. It accordingly conducts to the divine. Paul says: "The law was instituted because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made." Then, as if in explanation of his meaning, he adds: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up," manifestly through fear, in consequence of sins, "unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; so that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we should be justified by faith."

as if in answer to the question What then is the law? meaning, Why was the law given? he at once replies and says: It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator; whereby he means, that the reason why the law was added was this, that by means of it and of the priesthood the people which had received the promise should be under safe guardianship—the people, namely, sprung from Abraham—and that there should be no intermixture of this people with any other; so that thereby he who had been foretold might be recognisable by all—he, by whom the world is being renovated, and by whom also the purpose and economy which God had from the first designed is being fulfilled.

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that under the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship-that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good." These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy.

From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: "Wherefore then the law of works? It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator." For the order of the words runs thus: "Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,"-man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer.

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel." For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, "that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle, where he thus speaks: "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man's opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned (ex quo ea quae secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est), in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.

It was after the offense of the people in the wilderness, after the adoration of the calf and their murmurings against God, that the law came to forbid transgressions.

(Verse 19, 20.) What then? The law was added because of transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. For indeed the law was not given for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners (I Tim. II, 9): and to go deeper, after the idolatry to which they were enslaved in Egypt, so that they forgot the God of their fathers, and subsequently said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt'; the ritual of worshiping God and the punishment of sinners was established by the hand of the mediator Christ Jesus, for all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made: not only the heavens, earth, sea, and all that we see, but also those things which were imposed on the stubborn people as the yoke of the Law through Moses (John I). And it is written to Timothy: For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. II, 5). After He deigned to be born for our salvation from the Virgin's womb, He is called mediator of God and men, being a separate person. But before He assumed a human body, and when He was with the Father in the beginning, He is called the Word of God made flesh, to all the holy ones to whom the word of God was made, namely Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and later Moses and all the Prophets, whom Scripture relates, without the addition of man whom He had not yet assumed, He is called only mediator. But when he says: The law was ordained by angels, this is to be understood, that in every Old Testament, where an angel is first seen and afterwards introduced as speaking as God: The angel indeed among the many ministers who may have been seen truly, but it is in this mediator that he speaks who says: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exodus 3:6). And it is not surprising if God speaks in angels, since He also speaks through angels who are in human beings, as Zechariah says. And the angel who was speaking with me said (Zech. II, 3); and afterwards adding: Thus saith the Lord almighty. For the angel who was said to be in the prophet did not dare to speak in his own person: Thus saith the Lord almighty. The hand of the mediator, we must understand, is the power and might of him. He, being one with the Father according to his Godhood, is understood to be distinct from him according to his office as mediator. But since the order of the reading is confused and disordered by a hyperbaton, it seems that it should be rendered to us thus: The Law was given through angels into the hand of the mediator, ordained by angels because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made. But there is no doubt that the seed signifies Christ, who is also proven to be the son of Abraham from the beginning of Matthew, as Scripture testifies: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This remark again is not superfluous; observe too how he glances round at every thing, as if he had an hundred eyes. Having exalted Faith, and proved its elder claims, that the Law may not be considered superfluous, he sets right this side of the doctrine also, and proves that the Law was not given without a view, but altogether profitably. "Because of transgressions;" that is to say, that the Jews might not be let live carelessly, and plunge into the depth of wickedness, but that the Law might be placed upon them as a bridle, guiding, regulating, and checking them from transgressing, if not all, at least some of the commandments. Not slight then was the advantage of the Law; but for how long?

"Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made."

This is said of Christ; if then it was given until His advent, why do you protract it beyond its natural period?

"And it was ordained through Angels by the hand of a Mediator."

He either calls the priests Angels, or he declares that the Angels themselves ministered to the delivery of the Law. By Mediator here he means Christ, and shows that He was before it, and Himself the Giver of it.

"What then is the law?" As it was said by way of contrast to it. Why then was the law given, he says, if it cannot save?

"It was added because of transgressions." It was not given in vain, he says, but in order that what appears to be from God may not be transgressed, so that even small faults may be prevented. "added." He rightly says "added" to show that the law is not original, as the promises are, but was given as something following arising from what preceded.

"until the seed to whom the promise referred should come." But the law was not given for eternity, he says, but until Christ comes, to whom it has been promised that all the nations will be blessed.

"administered through angels." The law was given, that is, enjoined, served and commanded through the intervention of messengers, whether of the priests or indeed of angels.

It is said to have been given into the hand of a mediator, that is, of Christ. For he wishes to show that the law was given under Christ, so that he might also be the Lord to abolish it. For the one who gives also has power to abolish. He calls Christ a mediator because he mediates to the Father and to men, as it were toward friendship, and reconciles us to God, to whom we were at enmity.

— [CHRYSOSTOM] "by the hand of a mediator." Here he calls Christ the Mediator, showing that he also gave the law beforehand.

For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

This question should be read as a personification. "What you want to know," he says, "is why the law was imposed. I shall tell you.… It was imposed for the tutelage of the race from which that offspring was going to sprout according to the flesh."

It was imposed through the ministry of angels, and Moses assisted in this imposition. For Moses is the one that is called an intermediary. … For the God of all set Michael over them, as taught by the blessed Daniel. And to the great Moses he promised to send with him an angel to the people.

Since he had exalted faith and pointed out that it is more ancient than the law, an objection arose: why then was the law given, if faith was more ancient and itself conferred the blessing? Not in vain, he says, was the law given, but for the sake of transgressions, to serve as a bridle for the Jews, preventing the violation of if not all, then at least some of the commandments. It is also beautifully said: "it was added afterwards," to show that the law was not given as a primary institution, like the promises, but was given, as it were, as a supplement, on account of the many transgressions, so as to prevent at least a few.

However, the law was not given forever, but until the time of the coming of Christ, to Whom the promise pertained, that through Him the nations would be blessed. But if the law was given until the appearing of Christ, why then do you extend its significance further?

The Law, he says, was given through the mediation of Angels – either priests, or actual Angels, because indeed Angels produced those trumpet sounds, thunders, and signs. "By the hand of a mediator," that is, Christ. He shows that Christ also gave the Law, and therefore He is free to abolish it as well.

After showing by the authority of scripture and by a human custom that the Law was unable to make one just, the Apostle now raises two questions and solves them. The second of these begins at (v. 21).

With respect to the first, he does three things:

First, he raises the question;

Secondly, he solves it (v. 19): "It was set because of transgressions;"

Thirdly, he elucidates something he presupposed in the course of his solution (v. 20).

The question which might arise from the foregoing is this: If the Law was unable to justify, was the Law without purpose? This question he raises when he says, "Why then was the law?" i.e., what purpose did it serve? This is the punctuation which, as a Gloss says, Augustine favors, although earlier he approved the reading, "What then?" followed by, "The law was set up because of transgressions." In Romans (3:1), a similar question is raised: "What advantage then hath the Jew; or what is the profit of circumcision?"

Then when he says, "It was set because of transgressions," he solves the question. Here he does four things:

First, he sets down the purpose of the Law;

Secondly, the fruit of the Law (v. 19): "until the seed should come to whom he made the promise;"

Thirdly, the ministers of the Law (v. 19): "being ordained by angels;"

Fourthly, the Lord of the Law (v. 19): "in the hand of a mediator."

With respect to the first, it should be noted that the Old Law was given for a fourfold purpose, corresponding to the four consequences of sin enumerated by Bede, namely, because of wickedness, weakness, passion, and ignorance. Hence the Law was given first of all to suppress wickedness, since by forbidding sin and by punishing, it restrained men from sin. This he touches on when he says, "The law was set because of transgressions," i.e., to prevent them. On this point it is said: "The law is not made for the just man but for the unjust" (1 Tim 1:9). The reason for this can be taken from Ethics IV of the Philosopher. For men who are well disposed, are inclined to act well of themselves, so that fatherly admonitions are enough for them: hence they do not need a law; indeed, as it is said, "They are a law to themselves who show the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:14).

But men who are ill disposed need to be kept from sin by penalties. Hence with respect to such men it was necessary to set down a law which has power to constrain.

Secondly, the Law was set down in order to disclose human weakness. For men gloried in two things: First, in their knowledge; and secondly, in their power. Hence God left men without the instruction of the Law during the period of the Law of nature, during which time, as they fell into errors, their pride was convinced of its lack of knowledge, even though they still presumed on their powers. For they said, "Many are willing and able, but there is no one to lead," as a Gloss says on Exodus (24:8): "All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do. We will be obedient." And therefore the Law was given which would cause a knowledge of sin, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). But it did not give the help of grace to avoid sin, so that man, bound by the Law, might test his strength and recognize his infirmity. Finding that without grace he was unable to avoid sin, he would more ardently yearn for grace. And this cause can also be derived from these words, if they are taken to mean that the Law was set for the sake of filling up transgressions, in the sense in which the Apostle speaks when he says: "Now the law entered in that sin might abound" (Rom 5:20). This is to be taken not in a causal but in a sequential sense; for after the Law entered in, sin abounded and transgressions multiplied, because concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, lusted after that which was forbidden, with the result that sin became more grievous, being now a violation of a written law. But God permitted this in order that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Hence he says significantly, It was set, i.e., interposed, as it were, between the Law of nature and the Law of grace.

Thirdly, the Law was given in order to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, worn out by various ceremonies, they would not fall into idolatry or lewdness. Hence Peter says: "This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10).

Fourthly, the Law was given as a figure of future grace in order to instruct the ignorant, according to Hebrews (10:1): "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come."

Then he sets forth the fruit of the Law when he says, "until the seed should come," i.e., Christ, of Whom God had promised that through Him all nations would be blessed: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt 11:13); "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18).

The ministers of the Law are mentioned when he says, "ordained," i.e., given in good order, "by angels," i.e., the messengers of God, namely, Moses and Aaron: "They shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts" (Mal 2:7). Or: "by angels," i.e., by the ministry of angels: "You have received the law by the disposition of angels" (Acts 7:53). And it was given by angels, because it was not fitting that it be given by the Son, Who is greater: "For if the word spoken by angels became steadfast... how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Heb 2:2). Furthermore, he says ordained, because it was given in proper sequence, namely, between the time of the Law of nature (during which men were convinced they could not help themselves) and the time of grace. For before they should receive grace, they had to be convinced by the Law.

The Lord of the Law is Christ; hence he says, "in the hand of a mediator," i.e., in the power of Christ: "In his right hand a fiery law" (Deut 33:2); "There is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). This mediator was represented by Moses in whose hand the Law was given: "I was the mediator, and stood between the Lord and you at that time" (Deut 5:5).

Without doubt, a mediator, that is, arbiter, is not of one but two. For when two peoples were contending against one another, always at odds and enemies because of the disparity in their doctrines, the Savior came as their Mediator, taking from each people the cause of discord so that they might be at peace. So he took from the Gentiles the plurality of gods and cult of the elements, and he took from the Jews the works of the law, that is, new moons, circumcision, the keeping of the sabbath, the distinction of foods and other things that the Gentiles abhorred. And thus those who were formerly enemies came to be at peace. If then this is the case, how could the Galatians be so dull-witted as to violate this reconciliation by conversion back to Judaism?

What can the heretics say to this? for as, according to them, the expression "the Only True God" excludes the Son from being true God, so here the phrase "God is One," excludes Him from being God in any sense. But if, although the Father is called "One God," the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called "Very God," the Son is very God likewise. Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men. Observe, he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to give, it is His to annul.

"Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one." The mediator, he says, is the mediator of two. Of whom then is Christ the mediator? Clearly of both men and God. Do you see how he shows that he both gave the law himself, and would also be Master and to loosen it again?

"Now a mediator is not of one." He says therefore that Moses indeed mediated for the giving of the law, but he mediated for only one nation.

— [GENNADIUS] It is necessary, however, that the one who truly is to mediate should mediate toward the one God of all nations, not on behalf of one nation, but should make the mediation common for all, since the God of all nations is one. And this mediator would not be a mere man like Moses, but Christ the Son of God, both God truly at the same time, and truly man, and by kinship toward each nature uniting the two into one in himself. "For he himself is our peace, who has made both one." (Eph. 2:14) [end of the excerpt by Gennadius] —

"is not of one." For there is not one mediator, but God and men. And if he himself mediated, he says, he himself shall save.

"God is one." If then a mediator must necessarily be someone between two parties or more who are different from one another, and God is one, it is clear that he interceded between God and humans and reconciled us to him. If then Christ reconciled us and not the law, it is evident that Christ and the faith in him save, and not the law.

— In another way. [PHOTIUS] God is the one who gave both the Law and the Gospel, and who acted as mediator and reconciled to the Father. That is to say, he is the same who is Christ. For even if the things mediated are two, the mediator is one; for he must be one. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

Because this situation had made the Galatians turn to the law, so as to confess one God without the mystery, as if it were inimical to the law for Christ to be called God, he says: "An arbiter (that is, a mediator) is not of one but of course of two. You however, having turned to the law, have rejected the arbiter. God, however, is one." By saying this, he bears witness that he is not preaching Christ in such a way as to make him another God or confess two but that there is one God, as the law itself attests.

For [Moses] mediated between God and the people. But God is the one who both gave the promise to Abraham and imposed the law, and he has shown us the destination of the promise. For it was not one God who dispensed the former and another who dispensed the latter.

So also Christ serves as a mediator between two parties, namely, between God and men. For He reconciled both, giving peace and destroying the enmity that men had with God. Since He united human nature with Himself, He gave peace, wondrously uniting with the Divine nature the flesh that was hostile to it on account of sin. Therefore, if He is the mediator and reconciler, then it is clear that He saves, and not the law.

Then when he says, "Now a mediator is not of one," he explains what he meant when he said, "in the hand of a mediator." This can be explained in three ways. In one way, that a mediator is not of one alone but of two. Hence, since He is the mediator of God and men, it was fitting that He be God and man. For were he purely man or solely God, He would not be a true mediator. Therefore, if He is true God, then since no one is his own mediator, someone might suppose that there are, besides Him, other gods of whom He was the mediator. But this he forestalls when he says that although this "mediator is not of one" only, there are not on that account other gods, "but God is one," because, although He is distinct in person from God the Father, He is not distinct in nature: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4); "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:6).

In a second way, because someone might believe that He was the mediator of the Jews alone, he says: I say that Christ is mediator; but not of one, i.e., of the Jews, but one of all, i.e., capable of reconciling everyone to God, because He is God: "For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith" (Rom 3:30); "For God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

In a third way, namely, that He is not a mediator of only one people, namely, the Jews, but of the Gentiles as well: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one" (Eph 2:14); on the part of the Gentiles by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews by delivering them from the observances of the Law. Specifically it is not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son who is mediator; nevertheless, God is one.

Since God gave the law, it is not plausible that that same law should be seen as having been given against the promises. It is certainly against the promises if it embroils us in other things, namely, that we should fulfill the works required by the law and not expect from faith what is promised, that we should obtain through faith an inheritance in God. But let us see what is his answer to this. He first denies it unequivocally: "Certainly not!" That is, it is not right that God should make the giving of the law contrary to the promises.… And next he adds the reason.

We have said that the law given by Moses teaches nothing but sins, admonishing us what sins are and how they are to be avoided. And Scripture draws no other conclusion but lays down all its precepts in the light of and with reference to sin.… It is not given so that life may be sought from it but is given so that by its written form it may both include all sins in its teaching and show that they should be avoided. Therefore righteousness is not from the law; that is, justification and salvation come not from the law but from faith, as is promised.

(v21 onwards) So is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Therefore, it should not be understood that the promise is excluded because what followed seems to abolish what came before; but rather, it is clear that it is given for the preservation of the promise, not for its overthrow, because it was not able to give life or to bestow what the first promise had pledged. For if a law had been given that could give life and bring about what the promise had promised, then the promise would truly be regarded as excluded by the law. Now, however, on account of the transgressions, as we have said above, it more strongly argues against those sinners to whom, after the promise had been made, custody, and, so to speak, imprisonment, had been given, so that because they had not wanted to await the promised ones while innocent through the freedom of the will, they were hindered by legal chains, and, reduced to the servitude of commandments, they might be guarded until the coming of the future faith in Christ, which would bring an end to the promise. Nor should it be thought that Scripture is the author of sin because it is said to have concluded all things under sin, since the commandment which is prescribed by law rather shows and condemns sin than is the cause of sin. In the same way, a judge is not the author of crime by condemning wicked men, but he concludes them and pronounces his sentence by the authority of his judgment, so that he may afterwards absolve the guilty if he wishes by the forgiveness of the penalty.

For if the blessing is given in the seed of Abraham, but the Law brings in the curse, it must be contrary to the promises. This objection he meets, first, by a protest, in the words,

"God forbid:" And next he brings his proof;

"For if there had been a law given which could make alive. verily righteousness would have been of the Law."

His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words...

— [GENNADIUS] Therefore the promises bless, but the law makes accursed; consequently the law was given against the promises of God, that is, to hinder them from blessing. [end of the excerpt by Gennadius] —

This indeed resolves the opposition, both by what follows and by the prohibition: For let it not be, he says.

— In another way. [PHOTIUS] "Then is the law against the promises of God?" On the contrary, it dissolves them. For some might say, the law has seized the entitlement of the promises, and has stood against them. But may it not be. For if it had the power to give life, one would reasonably think it to be set against the promises and to have seized their entitlement, since it is able to justify by its own power. But since it has no power to do any such thing, neither to give life nor to justify, it is clear that it was not appointed against the promises. For these promises will show their proper right, saving and justifying the one who is of faith. And see the wisdom. What another might have brought forward as an accusation against the law, that it neither gives life nor justifies, this very thing he has turned into a defense of the charge and into its praise. For this reason, he says, the law was not set against the promises, because it had no power either to save or to justify. Not only did he not act against them, but in a certain way he cooperated with them and served them. For what he did not save nor justify by other means, he urged to take refuge in faith. And by which he brought them to faith, he also conspired to bring about the fulfillment of the promises. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

"For if a law had been given that could impart life." For on the one hand, he says, the law had the power to save, so that faith would not even be necessary. But for this reason it did not have the power to give life, so that faith might have room; except that it beforehand purified and led as a kind of guardian [παιδαγωγοῦ] and made us capable and receptive of faith. How then does the one who makes progress by the promises oppose the promises of God? It is therefore neither possible nor reasonable to say that the law was given for the removal of the blessings.

"then righteousness would indeed have been based on the law." But now, Paul says, he himself did not have strength, so that faith might have strength.

If the promises communicated blessing, and the law subjected to cursing, then obviously, if we had accepted it as having force, it would have destroyed the promises of God, which give blessing. But let it not be so. Listen further in order.

Then, he says, the law would have been stronger than faith, would have imparted blessing and justified man, if it had been able to give life and save. But now it rather kills, since it cannot free from sins. How then can the law overcome faith, which has the power to give life through baptism, and to bless and justify?

Here, the Apostle raises the other question, namely, whether the Law is injurious to grace. First, he raises the question, saying, "Was the law then against the promises of God?" As if to say: If the Law was set because of transgressions, does the Law go counter to the promises of God, namely, so that what God promised He would do through the promised seed, He would do through another? "God forbid!" As if to say: No. For earlier he had said: "The law doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect" (3:17); "The law, indeed is holy and the commandment holy" (Rom 7:12).

Secondly, when he says, "For, if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law," he answers the question.

First, he shows that the Law is not contrary to the promises of God;

Secondly, that the Law is in keeping with the promises (v. 22).

He says, therefore, that although the Law was set because of transgressions, nevertheless, it is not contrary to the promise of God in being unable to remove those transgressions. For if it were to remove them, then it would obviously be against the promises of God, because justice would be obtained by means other than God promised, since it would be through the Law and not through faith; whereas it is said: "The just shall live in his faith" (Hab. 2:4); "The justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22). Hence he says that "if there had been a law given such that it could" give life, i.e., of such power as to confer grace and eternal happiness, then verily and not seemingly, justice should have been by the law, if the Law were to effect what faith is said to effect. Thus faith would serve no end. But the Law does not give life, because "the letter of the law killeth," as is said in 2 Cor (3:6); "For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death" (Rom 8:2).

For those who are proud it is useful to be more closely bound under sin, so that they would not presume on free will for the performance of righteousness, as though upon their own strength.

Transgression of the law was needed to break the pride of those who, glorying in their father Abraham, boasted of having a sort of natural righteousness. They caused more harm to the Gentiles the more arrogantly they flaunted the merits of their circumcision. But the Gentiles could be humiliated very easily even without transgression of this sort of law, for the grace of the gospel found that these men, who knew that they had received no root of wisdom from their parents, were actually slaves to idols.… The law was therefore given not to take away sin but to include all under sin. For the law showed that to be sin which the Jews in their blindness deemed to be righteousness, so that by this humiliation they might know that their salvation was not in their own hands but in the hand of a mediator.… This very humility was fitted to the recognition of Christ, who is the paradigm of humility.

And they killed the prophets, and their followers too, and they received false prophets, thus revealing their malice. And so the Scripture shut up all things under sin, the first through ignorance, the second through weakness, and the third through malice, so that when Christ came, He could have mercy on them all.

Law without grace, then, can expose disease but cannot heal. It can reveal the wounds but does not administer the remedy. But so that the law's precepts may be fulfilled, grace provides assistance within.

As the Jews were not even conscious of their own sins, and in consequence did not even desire remission; the Law was given to probe their wounds, that they might long for a physician. And the word "shut up" means "convinced" and conviction held them in fear. You see then it is not only not against, but was given for the promises. Had it arrogated to itself the work and the authority, the objection would stand; but if its drift is something else, and it acted for that, how is it against the promises of God? Had the Law not been given, all would have been wrecked upon wickedness, and there would have been no Jews to listen to Christ; but now being given, it has effected two things; it has schooled its followers in a certain degree of virtue, and has pressed on them the knowledge of their own sins. And this especially made them more zealous to seek the Son, for those who disbelieved, disbelieved from having no sense of their own sins, as Paul shows; "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (Rom. x: 3)

"but Scripture has limited," that is, he allowed it to be confined and, as it were, to squeeze everyone into sin, God, through his various proper reasons and administrations.

But Scripture says that faith in Christ would be given a place. For even formerly the law, by being transgressed, taught men that they are sinners. But having taught, it did not free them from sin, so that from now men might gladly approach by faith to be delivered from their sins by the one who wills to save. And all this, he says, happened so that the promises made to Abraham, that the nations would be blessed, might be given to those who accept them through faith in Christ.

— [PHOTIUS] "but Scripture has limited everything." The Law, he says, as it were contained and shut up all into sin, proved them to be sinners. How? For he said, "For it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them;" and this is impossible. For not only did not all men do everything, but not even some of them did all, but at most the more visible of them did the greater part. Therefore whoever did not do everything was under a curse and sin. So they all were shut up and found to be in sin. Therefore, they are able to obtain the promise only through faith. For from the Law, being rather exposed as into sin, they all were shown. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

— [THEODORET] The Divine Scripture reproved both those before the law and those under the law. It reproved some for transgressing the law of nature, and others for transgressing the Mosaic law. To both sets, however, the promised salvation through faith was offered as a solution. For again it placed the word "convicted" instead of "reproved." [end of the excerpt by Theodoret] —

Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ," His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up.

The Law, he says, did not have the power to free from sins, but contributed to "shutting up" people under sin, that is, to show them as sinners and compel them to desire the remission of sins and turn to Christ, who is able to grant it. And since the Jews, not feeling the full weight of their sins, did not desire their forgiveness either, God gave the Law, which shuts them in, that is, presses and oppresses them with reproofs, declares them sinners, and urges them to seek a way to obtain forgiveness. And this way is faith in Christ, through which we receive blessing and justification.

Then when he says, "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin," he shows that the Law is not only not opposed to grace but serves it.

First, he shows that the Law serves God's promises;

Secondly, how this service was made manifest in the case of the Jews (v. 23);

Thirdly, how the Gentiles even without the Law obtained the promises of God (v. 26).

With respect to the first it should be noted that in general the Law serves the promises of God in two ways. First, because it exposes sin: "For by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). Secondly, because it reveals human infirmity, in the sense that man cannot avoid sin without grace which was not given by the Law. And just as these two things, namely, the knowledge of a disease and the infirmity of the patient is a great inducement to seek medical treatment, so the knowledge of sin and of one's impotency lead us to seek Christ. Thus, therefore, is the Law the servant of grace, inasmuch as it affords a knowledge of sin and actual experience of one's impotency. Hence he says, "the scripture," i.e., the written Law, "hath concluded," i.e., held the Jews enclosed, "under sin," i.e., showed them the sins they committed: "For I had not known concupiscence, if the Law did not say: Thou shalt not covet" (Rom 7:7). Again, "hath concluded," because with the coming of the Law they took occasion to sin: "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all" (Rom 11:32). And all this in order that they would search for grace. Hence he says, "so that the promise," i.e., the promised grace, "might be given" not only to the Jews, but to all them that believe, because that grace was able to free from sin; and this grace is "by the faith of Jesus Christ."