Galatians 3:21 Ulasan

The apostle in this chapter, I. Reproves the Galatians for their folly, in suffering themselves to be drawn away from the faith of the gospel, and endeavours, from several considerations, to impress them with a sense of it. II. He proves the doctrine which he had reproved them for departing from - that of justification by faith without the works of the law, 1. From the example of Abraham's justification. 2. From the nature and tenour of the law. 3. From the express testimony of the Old Testament; and, 4. From the stability of the covenant of God with Abraham. Lest any should hereupon say, "Wherefore then serveth the law?" he answers, (1.) It was added because of transgressions. (2.) It was given to convince the world of the necessity of a Saviour. (3.) It was designed as a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ. And then he concludes the chapter by acquainting us with the privilege of Christians under the gospel state.

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 3 In this chapter the apostle reproves the Galatians for their disobedience to the Gospel, and departure from it; confirms the doctrine of justification by faith, by various arguments; shows the use of the law, and the abrogation of it, and makes mention of several privileges which belong to believers in Christ. He begins with a sharp reproof of the Galatians, and represents them as foolish and bewitched, and charges them with disobedience to the truth of the Gospel, which is aggravated by the clearness of the Gospel ministry, in which a crucified Christ, and justification by him, had been so evidently set before them, Gal 3:1, and by the fruit and effect of it, they having received the Spirit by it, and not by the preaching of the law of works, Gal 3:2 and it still increased their folly, that whereas they had begun with the Spirit of God, and set out in a dependence on him and his grace, they seemed now as if they would end in a carnal and legal way, Gal 3:3. To which is added, the consideration of their having suffered many things for the sake of the Gospel, which must be suffered in vain should they relinquish the Gospel, though the apostle hoped otherwise of them, Gal 3:4, nay, they had not only received through the preaching of the Gospel the Spirit, and his graces, but even extraordinary gifts attended it, for the confirmation of it, Gal 3:5, so that this case of theirs was a very aggravated one, and they were guilty of great folly and madness: from hence the apostle passes to the main thing in dispute, the great truth of justification by faith in the righteousness of Christ, which these persons were departing from, and which he establishes by several arguments; and first from the instance and example of Abraham, who was justified by faith, as appears from that which he believed, being imputed to him as his justifying righteousness, Gal 3:6, and as many as are believers in Christ are his spiritual children, and so undoubtedly are justified the same way their father was, Gal 3:7, and particularly that the Gentiles are justified by faith is clear from the preaching of the Gospel to Abraham, and the promise made unto him, that in his seed all nations should be blessed; that is, with the blessing of justification, Gal 3:8. The conclusion of which instance and example is, that as faithful Abraham was blessed with a justifying righteousness through faith, so all that believe are blessed along with him with the same blessing, Gal 3:9, and that no man can be justified by the works of the law is certain, since the law is so far from justifying any on account of obedience to it, that it pronounces a curse upon all that do not perfectly and constantly fulfil it, Gal 3:10. And this is still further evident from a passage in the prophecy of Hab 2:4 which declares, that the just live by faith, or that those who are truly righteous are such who are justified by it, Gal 3:11. And this is illustrated by the law and faith being contrary; for if a just man lives by faith, then not by the law, for the law does not direct a man to believe, but to work, and to live by his works, Gal 3:12. And the apostle having spoken of the law as a cursing law, takes the opportunity of showing how believers are delivered from the curse of it, which is done by Christ's being made a curse for them; and that he was, appears from his being crucified and hanged on a tree; the ends of which were, that the same blessing of justification Abraham had, might come upon the Gentiles through Christ, and that they might by faith receive the promise of the Spirit, Gal 3:13 so that it is clear from hence, that the blessing of justification is through Christ's being made a curse, and is received by faith, and is not by the works of the law. The apostle next argues from the inheritance being by covenant, testament, or promise, and therefore not by the law: he observes, that a man's covenant or testament, when confirmed, can neither be disannulled, nor have anything added to it, and much less can the covenant or testament of God, confirmed of him in Christ, be disannulled by the law, or the promise in it be made of none effect by that which was several hundred years after a declaration of it to Abraham, to whom, and to whose seed, the promises were made; so that it unavoidably follows, that since the inheritance or blessing of life is by promise, as is clear from its being given to Abraham by promise, then it is not of the law, Gal 3:15. And whereas an objection might arise, if this be the case, of what use and service can the law be? to what purpose, or for what end, was that given? The apostle answers, that it was added because of transgressions; and that it was to endure until Christ should come, to whom the promise was made; and accordingly it was published in a very grand and solemn manner by angels, and was put into the hands of a mediator, Moses, who stood between God as one party, and the people of Israel as another, Gal 3:19. Moreover, as it might be further objected, that, according to this way of reasoning, the law is against the promises; the apostle replies in a way of detestation and abhorrence of any such thing, and by an argument from the insufficiency of the law to justify, since it cannot give life, Gal 3:21. And then proceeds to point out another use of the law, which is to conclude men under sin, or convince men of it, that they, seeing their need of righteousness and life by Christ might receive the promise of it through faith in him Gal 3:22, and so far were men from being justified by the law under the former dispensation, that they were kept under it as in a garrison, and shut up in it as in a prison, until Christ, the object of faith, was revealed, and released them, Gal 3:23, and was moreover as a rigid and severe schoolmaster; and so it continued until the times of Christ; and these therefore being the uses of the law, it is a clear case that justification is by faith, and not by that, Gal 3:24. Besides, Christ being now come, the Jews themselves are no more under this law as a schoolmaster; it is now abolished, and therefore there is no justification by it, Gal 3:25. And that this is the case of true believers in Christ is evident, because such are the children of God, and are taught and led by the Spirit of God, and are free, and not under the law as a schoolmaster, Gal 3:26. Besides, as they are baptized into Christ, they have put him on, as the Lord their righteousness, and so profess to be justified by him, and him only, Gal 3:27, and these, let them be of what nation, sex, state, and condition soever, are all one in Christ, and are all justified in one and the same way; and being Christ's they are Abraham's spiritual seed, and so heirs of the same promise of righteousness and life as he, Gal 3:28.

Is the law then against the promises of God?.... If the law was added because of transgressions, and curses for them, and if the inheritance is not of it, but by promise, were it, it would not be by promise, then, says an objector, it is against the promises: these are contrary to one another, and God, in giving the one and the other, must contradict himself: to which it is replied, God forbid; a way of speaking the apostle uses, when he would express his abhorrence and detestation of anything, as here; for though the law and promises are distinct things, and have their separate uses, yet they are not contradictory to each other; the law has its use, and so have the promises; the promises do not set aside the law as useless on all accounts, nor does the law disannul the promises, but is subservient to them: for if there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law; but the law cannot give life, spiritual life to a dead sinner; God only can do this, Father, Son, and Spirit; so far is the law from giving it efficiently, that it is not so much as the means of it; it is not made use of this way; God makes use of the law to kill, but not to make alive; he makes use of the law to strike dead all a man's hopes of happiness, by the deeds of it; but it is the Gospel he uses to quicken and comfort; that is the Spirit that giveth life. The law requires as much of a dead sinner, as it did of Adam in innocence, but gives him no life, activity, and strength to perform; could it quicken him, and enable him to do all its demands perfectly, then there would be righteousness, and so justification by it, as by the promise; whence it appears that there is no contrariety in the law to the promises: the reason why there is no righteousness is, because it cannot give life, spiritual life and strength; and if so, then not eternal life; which is the free gift of God, and not the merit of men's works: this is directly contrary to a notion of the Jews, who cry up the law as a life giving law; say they (n), "great is the law, , "for it giveth life to them that do it", in this world, and in the world to come:'' and elsewhere (o), "the law is a tree of life to all that study in it, , "to give unto them life" in this world, and "to give unto them life" in the world to come.'' (n) Pirke Abot, c. 6. sect. 6. (o) Zohar in Gen. fol. 70. 3. & in Num. fol. 62. 1.

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,

(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.

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.

— [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).

The apostle inquires how they could be so foolish as to renounce the Gospel of Christ and turn back to the law, after having heard, received, and suffered so much for the Gospel, Gal 3:1-5. Asserts the doctrine of justification by faith, on the example of Abraham, Gal 3:6-9. Shows that all who are under the law are under the curse, from which Christ alone redeems us; and the promise made to Abraham comes to the Gentiles who believe, Gal 3:10-14. For the covenant is not by the works of the law, but by promise, Gal 3:15-18. The law was given to show the sinfulness of sin, and to act as a schoolmaster till Christ should come, Gal 3:19-25. It is by faith only that any become children of God, Gal 3:26. And under the Gospel, all those distinctions which subsisted under the law are done away; and genuine believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, are one in Christ Jesus, and accounted the genuine children of Abraham, Gal 3:27-29.

Is the law then against the promises of God? - Is it possible that the intervention of the law, in reference to one part of the Abrahamic seed, should annul the promise made to the other? It is impossible. For if there had been a law, etc. - If any law or rule of life could have been found out that would have given life - saved sinners from death, and made them truly happy, then righteousness- justification, should have been by that law.

REPROOF OF THE GALATIANS FOR ABANDONING FAITH FOR LEGALISM. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VINDICATED: THE LAW SHOWN TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROMISE: BELIEVERS ARE THE SPIRITUAL SEED OF ABRAHAM, WHO WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US TO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH. (Gal. 3:1-29) that ye should not obey the truth--omitted in the oldest manuscripts. bewitched--fascinated you so that you have lost your wits. THEMISTIUS says the Galatians were naturally very acute in intellect. Hence, Paul wonders they could be so misled in this case. you--emphatical. "You, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been graphically set forth (literally, in writing, namely, by vivid portraiture in preaching) among you, crucified" (so the sense and Greek order require rather than English Version). As Christ was "crucified," so ye ought to have been by faith "crucified with Christ," and so "dead to the law" (Gal 2:19-20). Reference to the "eyes" is appropriate, as fascination was supposed to be exercised through the eyes. The sight of Christ crucified ought to have been enough to counteract all fascination.

"Is the law (which involves a mediator) against the promises of God (which are without a mediator, and rest on God alone and immediately)? God forbid." life--The law, as an externally prescribed rule, can never internally impart spiritual life to men naturally dead in sin, and change the disposition. If the law had been a law capable of giving life, "verily (in very reality, and not in the mere fancy of legalists) righteousness would have been by the law (for where life is, there righteousness, its condition, must also be)." But the law does not pretend to give life, and therefore not righteousness; so there is no opposition between the law and the promise. Righteousness can only come through the promise to Abraham, and through its fulfilment in the Gospel of grace.