Galatians 3:15Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

From many other passages one may be convinced that he loves to use this kind of proof. God Himself also often speaks this way in the Old Testament, for example: "Can a woman forget her nursing child?" (Is 49:15). And again: "Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'What are you making?'" (Is 29:16; 45:9).

In Hosea He likens Himself to a husband despised by his wife (Hos 1:2). In the Old Testament images, too, one can see much borrowed from human examples, as when the prophet girds himself and goes down to the potter's house (Jer 18:2).

What, then, does the example cited by the Apostle mean? It means that faith was earlier, while the law appeared later, has a temporary significance, and was given to prepare the way for faith.

Therefore he says: "Brethren, I speak according to human reasoning." Having called them foolish above, he here calls them brethren. In this way he both reproves them and consoles them.

"Even a human covenant once confirmed." If a man, he says, makes a testament, will anyone dare afterward to change it or add anything? This is what the word "adds" means. Therefore one must all the more not do this with the covenant of God.

To whom, then, did God make the testament?

Indeed, what I am about to say, I say according to man and not according to God. I do not speak according to revealed wisdom, nor according to the strength of those who can be nourished by solid food.

I speak according to the strength of those who, because of the tenderness of their stomach, are nourished by the moisture of milk and are wholly unable to assimilate what is great (1 Cor 3:2).

Therefore, when addressing the Corinthians, among whom fornication had become known, and such fornication as is not found even among the Gentiles, he said: “I say this, not the Lord” (1 Cor 7:12).

And in the second Epistle to the same: “What I say, I say not according to the Lord, but as in foolishness” (2 Cor 11:17).

Some think that the Apostle said, “Brethren, I speak according to man,” with human testaments, the death of the testator, and other examples from human life in view.

It seems to me that these words are placed first both for the reason they indicate and especially because of what follows: “And he did not say, ‘to seeds,’ as to many, but as to one: ‘and to your seed,’ which is Christ.”

Carrying my mind and memory through all the Scriptures, I have nowhere found it written “seeds,” that is, in the plural. It is always in the singular, whether in a good sense or a bad one.

Likewise concerning what he says, “Now this I call a covenant confirmed by God,” anyone who carefully compares the Hebrew scrolls and the other editions with the translation of the Seventy will find the following.

Where “covenant” is written, the word does not signify testament or will, but agreement. In Hebrew this is expressed by the word Berith (הידב).

From this it is evident that the Apostle did what he promised. He used not a meaning hidden from the Galatians, but an ordinary and simple one.

If the Apostle had not warned that he was speaking according to man, this might have displeased thoughtful people.

In this passage one must understand the years that passed from the time when the Lord said to Abraham, “And in your seed all nations shall be blessed” (Gen 22:18), until the time when Moses the lawgiver appeared.

Whether four hundred years actually passed, or how in Genesis the Lord promises Abraham himself that after four hundred years his descendants would come out of Egypt, is no small question.

Many have investigated it, though I do not know whether anyone has fully resolved it. What is said in the same book about Tamar and her two infants (Gen 38) agrees with this passage.

The first, named Zerah, showed his hand from his mother’s womb, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread to it. Then, when that hand drew back, the second, named Perez, put out his hand.

This means that Israel showed its hand in the fulfillment of the works of the Law. Then, after staining it with the blood of the prophets and of the Savior Himself, it withdrew it.

Only afterward did the Gentile people come forth. Scripture very often says of this people that through it the barrier separating Jews and Gentiles was destroyed and overthrown.

This was so that there might be one flock and one shepherd, and so that glory, honor, and peace might be to every man who does good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek.

The simple meaning of this passage is as the Apostle teaches: the promise given to Abraham before the Law cannot be destroyed by the Law given later.

What came later must not be preferred to what came before. For four hundred thirty years earlier, the promise was given to Abraham that in him all nations would be blessed.

The observance of the Law, which, if anyone fulfills it, he lives in it, was prescribed thirty years later on Mount Sinai through Moses.

Here the opposite may also be said. Why, then, was it necessary to give the Law so many years after the promise?

After the proclamation of the Law, suspicion could arise that the promise, the agreement, had been abolished. Conversely, if the meaning of the promise is retained, one might think that the Law has no importance.

Foreseeing this objection, the Apostle in the following discourse raises it against himself in this sense and gives the answer.

"Brethren, I speak according to human reasoning: even a human testament, once confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it" (Gal 3:15). Therefore the Mosaic Law, given during the interval between the promise spoken to Abraham, 430 years after it according to Gal 3:17, and its fulfillment in Christ, could neither assist this fulfillment nor weaken the promise.

"For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise. But God granted it to Abraham by promise."

Second objection: if the law did not change the conditions of justification by faith, why was it given?

In answering this question, the holy Apostle speaks first of the comparative dignity of the law and the promise. Then he explains the significance of the law in the history of salvation through Jesus Christ.

First: the comparative dignity of the law and the promise.

The similarity between the divine and human covenants is, of course, incomplete. Therefore in verse 15 the Apostle adds the qualification that he speaks of the immutability of the covenant's force according to the ordinary order.

According to Augustine: "The death of the testator finally makes the testament confirmed, because after this there is no longer any possibility for him to change his intention. In God this is replaced by the immutability of His determinations. For all the promises of God are in Him Yes, and in Him Amen" (2 Cor 1:20).

Explaining the content of the promise, the Apostle, in the words of Bishop Theophan, gives "an all-sufficient explanation of its meaning."

"God promised to bless the nations of all things by the seed of Abraham. This seed is Christ the Master Himself, for by Him this promise was brought to fulfillment, and the nations received the blessing. This is what the Apostle declares" (blessed Theodoret).

Everything the Apostle wrote was plainly written with possible objections from the false teachers in mind. Therefore, having affirmed the force of the promise positively, he affirms it also from the other side, negatively. To do this, he shows that the law, which appeared 430 years after the promise (Ex 12:40), could not destroy so ancient a force of the promise.

"How can the law annul this covenant or promise, so that the nations receive blessing not through Christ, but through the commandments of the law? This would be nothing other than the destruction of the promise, which is absurd," says Theophylact.

To this one may add the following words of blessed Augustine: "When the promise was given, the law had not yet been given. After so many years, it could not be given in such a sense as to make the preceding promise to Abraham void."

"What I have to say, I do not say according to God, nor according to hidden wisdom, nor as to those able to taste solid food. I speak as to those who, because of a tender stomach, are still nourished by milk and cannot hear of great things" (cf. 1 Cor 3:2; blessed Jerome).

"Yet," that is, even, behold, for indeed. The thought is this: you know that even a human covenant, once confirmed, is not annulled.

It is not a covenant confirmed by a man, but a human one, one that has place and occurs among men. The thought is not directed to the fact that it was confirmed by a man. Rather, it was confirmed as happens among men, composed according to all customary requirements, and chiefly, it has entered into force.

"A testament composed well, with a good purpose and in proper order, is not allowed to be distorted" (blessed Theodoret).

Κεκυρωμενην is read in some copies as προκεκυρωμενην, as also in our Slavonic, in the sense of long since confirmed. It gives the idea of a testament formally confirmed by lawful authority. Thus, among us, civil enactments confirmed by the sovereign acquire the force of law for execution.

"Even a human one, which is incomparably less firm than the divine. If a testator changes a testament, he changes one not yet confirmed. The death of the testator finally makes the testament confirmed, because after this there is no longer any possibility for him to change his intention. In God this is replaced by the immutability of His determinations" (blessed Augustine).

"For all the promises of God are in Him Yes, and in Him Amen" (2 Cor 1:20).

"No one." In the flow of speech, it means, as it were, no outsider. The law is also presented as an outsider appearing afterward. Or it means no one at all. That is, among men it does not happen that anyone changes a confirmed covenant.

The purpose of the holy Apostle in the comparison is to convince them of the immutability of God's promises. The force of the speech lies in "confirmed," in the sense of having entered into the force of law. All the other circumstantial terms have no great importance.

"Annuls or adds to it." To annul is to abolish altogether. To add is to append new points that change the meaning and significance of the first ones. This latter point is presupposed by the aim of the holy Apostle's speech.