Bible Commentaries
Galatians 3

Verses 1-14

III

JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER BEFORE GOD

Galatians 3:1-14.

We commence this chapter with a great question, not how shall a man as originally created in righteousness, knowledge, and true holiness be justified before God, but how shall a fallen, depraved, sinful, and condemned man be made just before God? This is the great question that Paul discusses. While this question is treated fragmentarily in many passages of both the Old and New Testaments, it is discussed elaborately and logically in only two books – Galatians and Romans – the latter speedily following the former. So far as Galatians is concerned, the argument is confined to Galatians 3-5, and as the argument is continuous without a break, it is a pity to have it broken up into chapter divisions. These discussions will disregard the chapter divisions and follow the one line of thought straight through, classifying and numbering the several points as they are logically developed in the progress of the argument.

So far in this book, i.e., in Galatians 1-2, we have considered the author of the letter in his apostolic call and qualifications, and his independent gospel received by direct revelation. But now we turn to his discussion of the great question as stated above. The intent of the argument is to convict the Galatians of their folly and sin in leaving the gospel they had received and relapsing into Judaism, if Jews, or turning to Judaism for salvation, if Gentiles. However, in making his argument, Paul employs many striking antitheses, or contrasts. A mere glance through the three chapters enables one to note the more important of these striking antitheses, and as the power of the argument lies most in his way of putting these contrasts, we should carefully consider each one as it comes up in the progress of the discussion proper or the exhortation based thereon. These antitheses are as follows:

1. The works of the law versus the hearing of faith.

2. The Spirit, or its fruit, versus the flesh, or its fruits. In Galatians 5, putting things in contrast, he says, "The works of the flesh are manifest, . . . But the fruit of the Spirit is love." He tells what they are, Just as if he had put two trees before us. A tree is to be known by its fruits. One tree bears blasphemy, lust, hatred, malice, and strife. This is the tree of the flesh, and is a bad tree because its fruits are bad. The other tree bears joy, love, peace, etc. I say his favorite method in this letter is to argue by antitheses, putting one thing over against another. To form an antithesis is to take two theses and show how they are diametrically opposite. "Antithesis" is one thesis against another thesis. The first one, as we have said, ’is the works of the law versus the hearing of faith. The second is the Spirit, or its fruit, versus the flesh, or its fruit. The third is the curse of the law versus the redemption of Christ. The fourth is the law versus the promises. Salvation does not come by law; it comes from the Spirit. The fifth is the covenant with Abraham versus the law covenant with Moses. If in any place in the world these covenants are held up in contrast, we find it in this letter. He says the covenant with Abraham was 430 years before the law, and that it was a covenant that God made and ratified. It could not be disannulled by the covenant made for another purpose 430 years later. Sixth, this antithesis, which appears more evident in the Greek, is – The child (pais) led by a slave, and under tutors versus the son (huios) come to freedom and inheritance. Or to put it in another form, the bondage of tutelage versus the freedom of the adoption of sons after one comes into his inheritance. Seventh, Mount Sinai versus Jerusalem, the allegory of the slave woman who is a mere concubine, and bears children unto bondage. The slave woman bearing children unto bondage versus the free woman or lawful wife bearing children unto freedom, is this antithesis. Eighth, born after the flesh versus born after the Spirit. Paul says that he that was born after the flesh was Ishmael; that Isaac was the one that was born supernaturally, or according to promise. Ninth, the circumcision of the flesh versus regeneration, or circumcision of the heart. (For the expansion of this thought see Romans 2:28-29.) Tenth, the Jew, or one nation circumcising males only, versus the fact that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female; all are baptized unto Christ. The woman is initiated, we may say, through baptism as well as the man, but the woman was counted but little under the Mosaic covenant, as there only the male children received the sign of the covenant. So we see that the force of this argument lies in the way of putting these contrasts. We do well to study these antitheses.

Since this section deals with such a great subject and is so greatly discussed, we will take it verse by verse. The first point that he makes is that it was not only folly in them before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified, i.e., for a man that had believed in the crucified Christ in order to salvation, to turn away from salvation by faith to the works of the law, but it was folly superinduced by some evil superhuman means: "Oh, foolish Galatians [there is the folly], who hath bewitched you?" That is, "you are not acting honestly; you could not be guilty of such folly as this if there was not exercising on you some evil influence that impelled you to go wrong." The thought would have been the same if he had said, “O, foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, to turn you away from Christ to the Mosaic law?" It was the hallucination of the devil, no matter who the human instrument was. There was a Jew from Jerusalem that did it.

His next argument is that the Spirit that they received when they were converted came by the hearing of faith, and not by the works of the law. See how he says it: "His only would I learn from you: received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" This is an appeal to their past experience, as if to say, "Let us go back to the time you were converted, and you received the Spirit, the witness of the Spirit, or the Spirit shining into your hearts to lead you to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is the greatest thing. The question is, Did that come to you by conformity to the Mosaic law, or did you hear the preaching of Christ crucified and believe? Did it come by faith?" This is a pretty searching question, going back to their conversion.

Notice the next point, "Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?" In other words, "How did your religious life start? It started in the Spirit. Now do you want to perfect what was started in the Spirit by going back to the flesh?" Just as the hearing of faith stands opposite to the law, so the work of the Spirit stands opposite to the works of the flesh. If we start in one principle, perfection comes by following up that principle. The teaching is that he who hath begun a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ. The next point is, "Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if it be indeed in vain?" In other words, "It is for the consideration of righteousness through faith that ye were persecuted, and because you, by the hearing of faith, received Jesus as your Saviour, and the Spirit as your guide, you had to suffer a great many things. If you turn to another system, then the value of that suffering is all passed away." Here is a nice little question of interpretation, "Did ye suffer so many things in vain? If it be indeed in vain." What does it mean by saying, "If it be indeed in vain"? There are two interpretations, one of which assumes that they started right which he had hope to believe; then the suffering that characterized that start would not be in vain; though they might temporarily be turned aside, they would come back. But there is another interpretation which is probably the right one, viz.: this suffering that they received would not be in vain from a Christian standpoint. If they were not Christians it would have meant something worse than in vain, i.e., even if indeed it was just in vain it would bring to them a disaster greater than the sufferings that they first experienced. I never saw a book in my life where more care should be taken in the interpretation of the words.

In Galatians 3:5 he thus presents another view of the point about their receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith: "He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?" In other words, "It is God that ministered the Spirit to you, and it is God that worked the miracles among you." Having looked at that subjectively) let us look at it again. "You received the Spirit certainly by the hearing of faith. When he ministered it, did he minister it on the condition that you would keep the law of Moses, or was it on the condition of faith?" Christ said in one place that he could not do many mighty works because they lacked faith in the miracle-working power. So that God who ministered to them spoke on the condition of faith, and they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. God ministered the Spirit to them on the condition that they believe in the miracle-working power for such a purpose.

We come now to a new point that extends down to the end of Galatians 3:17. In Galatians 3:6-7 he presents a new argument – the parallel between Abraham’s faith and the Christian faith. Abraham believed on God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Genesis 15 shows when Abraham was converted. It is the first place in which the Incarnate Word presented himself to Abraham in a vision, and it is said he believed in Jehovah and he reckoned, or imputed it to him for righteousness. This is the first time we find the phrase "imputed righteousness." He imputed Christ’s righteousness to him through faith. Abraham believed in Jehovah; Jehovah imputed or reckoned it unto him for righteousness. Now Paul’s argument is this: Who is the father of the whole Jewish people? Abraham. How did Abraham become just before God? How was he justified? He was reckoned righteous. Righteousness was imputed to him; he was not righteous through his works, but he became just before God through faith in another. What conclusion does he draw from that? "Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham." These Jews whom these Judaizing teachers attempted to turn to the law as a means of salvation are the children of Abraham by faith. They are not his children according to the flesh, but the true children of Abraham are those who have faith in God. Abraham had faith; those are his children who have faith. As he says, "Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham," just as he argues that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly.

We now come to one of the strongest testimonies to the inspiration of the Bible. "The scripture, foreseeing" – there the scripture is personified, as having the prophetic gift. The scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham. The scripture saw that in the ages to come the whole world would become the children of Abraham and preached the gospel to him. In what expression did it preach it? Where it says, "In thee shall all the nations be blessed." The blessings could not come to all the nations as children of Abraham by lineal descent, so they are to be children by faith in Jesus Christ. We understand that when Abraham came out of Ur of the Chaldees God said to Abraham, "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." If that interpretation of the scriptures is right, then this follows, presented in the next verse: "So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham." "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." What was the blessing? Justification. They are to be justified before God. That is what the scripture foresaw and therefore anyone may receive the blessing of justification and become the child of Abraham.

In Galatians 3:10 he brings up a new witness for his argument – the testimony of the law itself: "You want to go back and seek salvation from the law but what does the law say? As many as are under the law are under the curse, for it is written [written in the law] cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." If they should go back to the law system of salvation he tells them to listen to what the law says: "If you ever make a break, if you turn to the right hand or to the left hand, if you violate the law in any single instance, you are cursed."

In Galatians 3:11 he makes still another argument and we must distinguish between these arguments: "Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident; for, the righteous shall live by faith." This is from Habakkuk 2:4. That is the testimony of the prophet. The prophet comes in now to support his general line of argument. The law says, "You shall continue to live by continually living in perfect obedience." Habakkuk 2:4 says, "The just man [the man who hath justification] continues to live by faith." He starts by faith and keeps on by faith. This brings us to a general question. This passage in Habakkuk is quoted three times by Paul – in the passage here, in Romans 1:17, and also in Hebrews 10:38. In how many senses did Paul use that passage, "The just shall live by faith"? For instance, it means in one place that . the just by faith shall live, in another place that the justified shall continue to live by faith, and then when we examine that brief passage in Hebrews we see how the inspired apostle keeps getting meanings out of a passage of Scripture. It is like drawing many buckets out of a well, and still the well is not exhausted. He goes on to say that this prophet distinctly gays that the just shall live by faith. Then he says, "But you know what the law says." We have to put what the law says over against the "by faith." We know that the law is not by faith, but it is by perfect obedience – "He that doeth these things." Moses described the righteousness of the law, saying that they that do these things shall live by them, and then he says, "But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise." Thus he presents it in contrast.

Galatians 3:13 says: "You seek to go back to the law, but when you go back you are under the curse, for Christ redeemed us from under the curse of the law. When you turn from Christ to Judaism you turn from redemption to the curse itself." Redemption means to buy back, and that is why Christ died for us. He redeemed us from the curse of the law. Now, he says, "having become a curse for us," that is, he became the vicarious expiation (vicarious means in place of another) ; Christ became a curse for us, as it is written, "Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree." What was the object of Christ’s redeeming us from the curse of the law? He says in Galatians 3:14 that upon the Gentiles might come the blessings of Christ that we might receive the promise of grace through faith. I commend "The Bible Commentary" and Lightfoot’s commentary, which as a rule are safe commentaries. "The Bible Commentary" is safer than the "Cambridge Bible," and ten thousand times safer than the "Expositor’s Bible." I also recommend Luther’s Commentary on Galatians.

QUESTIONS

1. Where may we find an elaborate discussion of how a fallen, depraved, sinful, and condemned man can be made just before God?

2. What is the intent of the argument thus made in Galatians?

3. How is this argument set forth?

4. Give the ten antitheses of this argument.

5. What folly does Paul charge the Galatians with committing. Who was responsible for it primarily, and who secondarily?

6. What the argument based upon their experience?

7. What is the principle of attaining perfection, and the argument based thereon?

8. Give the argument based on their past sufferings, and interpret the expression, “If it be indeed in vain.”

9. Give the argument based on their reception of the miraculous gift of the Spirit.

10. What is the argument based on the parallel between Abraham’s faith and the Christian’s faith?

11. What is the testimony of the law itself on this point?

12. What is the Prophet’s testimony on this point?

13. Give Paul’s three applications of Habakkuk 2-4.

14. What the argument based upon the fact that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, and what the object of our redemption?

15. What books commended?

Verses 15-22

IV

JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER BEFORE GOD (CONTINUED)

Galatians 3:15-22.

This discussion commences at Galatians 3:15, thus: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto."

There is no reference to that in either the Sinaitic covenant or the grace covenant. Man’s law concerning a covenant between men requires that the agreement be kept according to its terms, whether verbal or written. Nothing not expressed can be added or substituted. A mental reservation on the part of either of the makers of the covenant, nor any afterthought on the part of either can be considered in human law. So long as the covenant is tentative, i.e., under consideration, terms of agreement may be modified, but when it is consummated and ratified it must stand on the terms expressed. This applies not only to all trades between individuals but to all treaties between nations. Even in human judgment Paul means to say that the character of man or nation stands impeached when a ratified covenant is broken. Disgrace attaches to the covenant breaker. See in Paul’s terrible arraignment of the heathen the odious place and company of "covenant breakers" (Romans 1:29). Here he is showing the immorality of the heathen life in that they have refused to have God in their knowledge. God gave them up, "Being filled with all unrighteousness) wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers." If we notice the place that covenant breakers occupy in that, and also notice the company in which they are placed, we get a conception of how even human law judges a man that breaks a covenant. The brand of infamy burned on the covenant breaker derives its odium, not merely from the fact that all social order depends upon the keeping of faith according to compact, but from the fact that ratification involves an appeal to God as witness to the compact made in his name and under oath expressed or implied. See Hebrews 6:16, and compare the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-32). There is a covenant between two men. After clearly staling the terms of the covenant, sacrifices are offered, and the oath to God is taken that they will keep that covenant. Then turning to Genesis 31:44-53, we read the covenant between Jacob and Laban, his father-in-law. There again is an oath and a memorial called Mizpah: "God shall witness between thee and me as to how we keep this covenant." The brand of infamy burned on the covenant breaker derives its significance from the customs among nations of regarding a compact of that kind as being made under witness of God and under oath to God. It is in this light that we understand the famous scripture describing the citizen of Zion, in Psalm 15: "Lord who shall ascend unto thy holy hill? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart and that sweareth to his own hurt and that changeth not," that is, a man makes a trade with his fellow man and afterward finds put that the trade is very disadvantageous to him; he must not take it back; he swore to his own hurt but he didn’t change; he stood up to his word, that is, having made the compact he sticks to it, no matter how disadvantageous to him, and in this light we understand the reproach cast upon the Carthaginians by the Romans in the proverb, "Punic faith," because, as they alleged, the Carthaginians violated solemn treaties ratified by oath and sacrificed to the gods. I am explaining in giving this illustration what Paul means by saying, "I speak after the manner of men." Luther, in his comment on this verse, is mistaken in limiting the meaning of the diatheke (covenant) to man’s last will and testament. In only two verses in the New Testament is diatheke to be rendered a ’’last will and testament," viz.: Hebrews 9:16-17, where the author finds a resemblance on one point between a covenant’ which becomes binding when ratified by the blood of the sacrifice and a will which becomes binding on the death of the testator.

But Paul’s argument here is from the lesser to the greater. If man’s law will not permit the annulment of a covenant ratified between men by any subsequent emergency or after thought, how much more God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-13) concerning all nations could not be annulled by the Sinaitic law covenant with one nation.

The force of the argument is overwhelming as Paul develops it:

1. The Sinaitic covenant was 43o years after the solemn promise of God concerning all nations.

2. The "seed" of the promise in Abraham’s case is one; he says, "of seed" not seeds; not many as in the law covenant; there the seed of Abraham with which that covenant was made is plural, about 3,000,000 of them standing there. A covenant of one kind made with the multitude cannot annul a promise which is given to one person.

3. The promise carried a blessing through the one seed, Christ, to all nations, whereas the law covenant, while it was with the fleshly seed of Abraham – lineal descendants (plural), a great multitude – concerned one nation only.

4. The first was by promise and not by law; hence a vast difference in the terms or conditions of inheritance. An inheritance by promise cannot be an inheritance by law, and vice versa. It will be noticed that this section says in the next place that this promise to Abraham was confirmed before of God. When was it confirmed and how was it confirmed? It was confirmed when Abraham offered up Isaac as set forth in Genesis 22. It was given before, but it was confirmed then and it was confirmed by an oath. Men confirm what they say by an oath. Witnesses go into court concerning a pending murder trial, and every man and woman of them has to swear to the evidence given. Men confirm their testimony by an oath. In the letter to the Hebrews the author says "For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Or, as Paul expressed it in Romans 4:16: "For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Mark the reason that the promise might be sure to all seed. The law covenant could not make things sure, it could not in its time, for it had to be repeated every day, every week, every month, every year and so over and over again. It could not be made sure, because if they kept the law one day, or one year, or one hundred years and then violated it in one particular the next year, they were out; it could not be sure. But the inheritance by promise is absolutely sure, because it is based on a promise.

Now, I will give an explanation of the last clause of Galatians 3:17 of this chapter and of Galatians 3:18-20, of which no commentary known to me has ever given a satisfactory explanation. I might cite many different explanations. In Galatians 3:17 Paul distinguishes between the grace covenant confirmed of God and announced to Abraham and the promise of that covenant given to Abraham, and argues’ that the law covenant given 430 years later for quite another purpose and to different persons could not disannul that promise. In the verses following, up to Galatians 3:20, he is not contrasting the grace covenant with the law covenant but the promise of the grace covenant with the law covenant. Just here come the words hard to be understood: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one." How are these words to be construed relevantly with the argument? I am able to see but one way. The law was given through a mediator because there were two distinct parties between whom Moses should be the "go-between" or mediator. But in the case of the promise there was only one party. God, who of grace freely promises. Hence, there is no need of a mediator in the case of a promise. "God is one," not two. God promises of himself. In the law covenant there were two, God and the people. His point is just this, that the law covenant had two parties to it, and these parties being at variance, a mediator, Moses, was employed to bring them into agreement. In Order to have the mediator there must be two parties, but in a promise, there is only one and that is God, no mediator, but a promise. An inheritance by promise cannot be inheritance by law, and vice versa.

5.The nature of the inheritance was different. The object of the promise was to secure spiritual blessings and a heavenly country; the object of the law was to secure earthly blessings and an earthly Canaan.

6. In a naked promise of pure grace there is no mediator because there ’is only one, not two, and he, of pure grace in himself, not from obligation of a compact with nations, promises a blessing to all nations, but as there were two in the law covenant there was a necessity for the mediator, Moses, the "go-between" of the two parties. It is impossible to interpret intelligently the last clause of Galatians 3:17 and Galatians 3:18-20, if we ignore the fact that Paul in these particular passages is contrasting, not covenant with covenant, but promise with covenant. He does indeed in this last clause of Galatians 3:17 and throughout Galatians 3:18-20, contrast promise with covenant in order to show how inheritance comes. There is no mediator in a promise, because there is only one party, God, who of pure grace in himself, promises, and not of a compact obligation. At Sinai were distinctly two parties; God, the party of the first part, proposes a covenant to the Jewish nation, the party of the second part, through a mediator, Moses. But when he promised that in Abraham’s seed, singular number, meaning Christ, all the families of nations, nations of the earth, should be blessed, God, who is only one, was indeed present, but the nations, thousands of them yet unborn, were not present. Hence there was no compact between God and the nations, and hence no mediator was necessary. The nations assumed no obligation. A promise relates to the future, and this promise was not given on any assumed condition hereafter to be performed by them. The blessing of the promise was not in them nor conditioned on what they would be in meeting compact terms. It was in Christ, and on the condition of what he would do. In saying that there is no mediator in a promise to men given freely by one party alone, it is not said that there is no grace covenant whose benefits Christ mediates to men. That covenant does have parties to it. But man is not one of the parties, for in a strict sense it was not made with Abraham, but only the promise of its blessings given to him. The parties to the grace covenant were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it was made in eternity before the world was, and each of these parties had stipulations to perform in behalf of men who were to receive the blessings of the covenant, the Father to give his only begotten Son to become the sinner’s substitute in death and judgment, and then to give him a spiritual seed, the Son to do the Father’s will in an assumed nature, in obedience unto death on the cross, and the Spirit to apply the vicarious sacrifice of the Son and to regenerate and sanctify those to whom the application is made. And from this eternal covenant, arise in eternity election and predestination, calling, justification, and regeneration on earth, and glorification in eternity after the Lord’s final advent. I say this covenant was not made with Abraham, but the promise of its blessings was made to him; made to him, however, in his one promised seed, even Christ. The law covenant was temporary; it was only, as the text says, to last until the promised seed comes; it was transitory. The law covenant, because inferior, was given through the disposition of angels. It was subsidiary. I use the word, "subsidiary." I will show what I mean. Our text says that the law covenant, 430 years after the promise, was superadded. What is meant by "superadded"? It was added to something that went before. What is it that went before? The grace covenant and the promise of the grace covenant. The law covenant did not come in to annul what preceded it, but it came in to be subsidiary to what preceded.

We come now to one of the greatest questions in the Bible, and Paul raises it squarely, "What then is the law?" Or as King James Version reads, "Wherefore then serveth the law?" If the law does not annul the grace covenant or its promise, what is it for? A man is a theologian who can answer that question scripturally. Here I give some scriptures to study and which must be interpreted before one can answer the question, "What then is the law?" I answer first negatively. Our text says it was not given as a law by which life could come. If we think a moment we see why; these people were sinners, already under condemnation. How could any attempt on their part to keep the law in the future bring them life? Suppose the sinner should say, "I want to obtain life from the law," and the law should put on its spectacles and say "Were you born holy, or did you start right?" That question knocks him out at the start. If there was not anything else he is gone. In Romans we see how Paul elaborates this. Our case was settled before we were born. Suppose we waive this question of starting right, can we perfectly keep this law? Let us assume that we say, "Yes." Now, what part of our life is absolutely perfect? If we are guilty of one point, we are guilty of all. If we should obey the law perfectly thirty years and then fail on one point we are gone. "What then is the law?" or "Why the law?" It certainly was not intended to confer life. And it was not intended to bring us the Holy Spirit, for I have already proved in the beginning of the chapter that the Spirit was received by the hearing of faith Take the great blessing – forgiveness of sins and justification was the law intended as the way of justification? It was not intended as a way of life; it was not intended to justify, for "By the works of the law shall no flesh in thy sight be justified." What then is the law? Here are the scriptures to be read: Galatians 3-4; Romans 7:1-14; Romans 5:20; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:15; 2 Corinthians 3:6-9. When one can expound these scriptures he can answer the question, "What then is the law, or why: the law?" What purpose does it serve? Paul says it was superadded to the grace covenant and subsidiary to the promise. Why was it added? Because of transgressions. But what the import of this reason?

The object of the law is not to prevent in, but to discover sin, t is a standard of right living, but it is not a way of life.

A man is a sinner and does not seem to know it. In order to serve a certain purpose of the grace covenant, the law must be superadded. Let us hold this standard right up before the man’s life, and whenever the life does not conform he is shown to be lawless. What is the purpose? To discover sin. I am sure we cannot set the man into the grace covenant, who has not discovered sin. Again the law was given to provoke to sin, to make sin abound, to provoke it to a development of all its potentiality, that sin may be seen as exceedingly sinful. So that the standard of the law not merely discovers sin, but by provocation develops it to its utmost expression. Sin must be made to appear exceedingly sinful. If we want to find what is in a boy, let us pass a law that he should not stand on top of a pole on one foot, and we shall see the boys climbing that pole and doing that very thing. It shows the lawless spirit that is in a child, even now. We thus see how law is subsidiary to the grace covenant, because one must realize sinfulness before we can bring him in touch with the promise of grace. Again, it is the object of the law to condemn and not to justify. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. If a man doesn’t feel that he is condemned, why should he seek to be justified? A great many people are quite sure that they are not under condemnation and therefore they do not need to be justified by the hearing of faith. What else? The law was added for wrath, to reveal the penalty of the sin. The law was added to gender bondage and death, to make a man see that he is a slave and doomed to death. The subsidiary nature of the law appears again in this expression of the context: "The law is a pedagogue unto Christ." What is a pedagogue? Let us get back to the etymology of the word. The Greek word “pedagogue” originally did not mean a schoolmaster, but meant the slave that carried the little boy to the school that the teacher might teach him. The law does not teach a man the way of life, but it is the pedagogue – the slave – in whose charge he puts his little son before that son is grown, and the duty of that slave is to accompany that little boy to school. Why? If there were not somebody along the little boy might play truant and go fishing or hunting. This slave’s business was not to teach; it was to take him to the school where the teacher was to teach him. Now, says Paul, the law was intended to be our pedagogue to Christ. So we see the point and force of the "superadded." The law is subsidiary; it does no saving itself, but it brings the sinner to one who can do something for him. An old preacher said, "When I find a perfectly hardened sinner that thinks he can stand on own record I take him to Mount Sinai and turn him over to it, smoking and thundering and let the hell-scare get him and when that hell-scare gets him he will look out for relief. He will know that he is a sinner." The law is a pedagogue I unto Christ. An old Presbyterian preacher once said that he I sent Moses after a sinner, and by the time Moses knocked him down a time or two he would be ready to take the Saviour.

QUESTIONS

1. Expound Galatians 3:15, "though it be but a man’s covenant’ showing (1) The requirements of a man’s covenant. (2) The extent of their application. (3) The disgrace attached to a covenant breaker. (4) From what the brand of infamy on a covenant breaker derives its odium. (5) Old Testament examples of covenants so regarded. (6) The reproach cast upon the Carthaginians. (7) Luther’s mistake. (8) The nature Paul’s argument in this verse.

2. Give the force of Paul’s argument under the following heads; (1) The difference of time. (2) The "seed" of the promise. (3) The "all nations" versus one nation. (4) The condition of inheritance. (5) The promise confirmed – when? (6) The purpose of the promise. (7) The nature of the inheritance. (8) The mediator of the covenant versus no mediator of the promise, expounding particularly Galatians 3:17-20.

3. In saying that there is no mediator in a promise to man given freely by one party alone, what is not said?

4. Who is the mediator of the grace covenant, who its parties, when made, and what the stipulations? From this covenant what great doctrines arise, (1) in eternity, (2) in time, (3) in eternity after the Lord’s advent?

5. What, then, Abraham’s relation to it?

6. What the argument based upon the fact that the law covenant was given by the disposition of angels?

7. How long was the law covenant to last?

8. Wherefore, then, the law, under following heads: (1) What scriptures to be studied here? (2) Meaning of "superadded" – added to what? (3) Why added? (4) How does law (a) discover sin, (b) provoke to sin, (c) condemn sin, (d) gender to bondage and death, (e) reveal wrath or penalty?

9. How is the law a pedagogue unto Christ?

V

INDUCTION INTO CHRIST

Galatians 3:23-4:20.

While in the last discussion we anticipated somewhat by dipping a little into Galatians 4, I commence this Galatians 3:23: "But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." The part of that verse that needs explanation is the word "faith." Faith is used in the following senses:

1. The act, or exercise, of believing in Christ. That is not what is meant by the word here, because the Old Testament people, looking through the types, believed in Christ and had witness borne to their faith, as we learn from Hebrews II. Therefore the error was radical when a Baptist preacher said that there was no faith in Christ until after Christ came and died, and no forgiveness of sins. And not only did I hear a Baptist preacher say that, but I heard a Campbellite preacher misapply it in the same way, saying there could be no remission of sins until Christ actually died, and then the sins of the Old Testament saints were remitted. But sins were remitted in Old Testament times on God’s acceptance of what the Surety would do at the proper time. We must not confound expiation and remission. I will give a financial illustration. Paul writes to Philemon: "If Onesimus oweth thee aught, put that to mine account." The very moment that Philemon charged it to Paul he could no longer hold it against Onesimus. It was remitted to Onesimus. The surety was held, and not the original contractor of the debt. It stood remitted against Onesimus, since it was put to Paul’s account. The debt was not actually paid to the creditor. Only the personal responsibility for the debt was changed. It was paid whenever Paul should pay it later. Just so God was in the world in Old Testament times not reckoning, or charging, or imputing their sins to them, but was charging them to Christ and reckoning them to Christ, and so sins were remitted just as freely in the Old Testament times as in the New Testament times, but the actual expiation was not made until Christ died. I quote from the "Philadelphia Confession of Faith" the following:

Art. VIII, Sec. 6: "Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy and benefit thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world...

Again Art. XI, Sec. 6: "The justification, of believers under the Old Testament, was in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament." And what is more authoritative than any confession of faith is the testimony of God’s Word in Romans 4:7 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. Nevertheless one should either subscribe to the confession of his denomination on vital points or quit the denomination.

2. Faith sometimes means the body or system, of gospel truths, usually preceded by the article "the." But evidently that cannot be the meaning here. In what sense then is "faith" used in Galatians 3:23? Here is the reading which supplies the modifying words: "But before the object of faith came we were kept in ward under the law." The object of faith is Christ, the antitype. The simple meaning of the whole section is, that an Old Testament believer, though his sins were remitted and he was justified, must yet observe the law of types until Christ came. Just as in Galatians 4 it says, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is Lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father." Being shut up under the law meant that the Old Testament saint, though his sins were remitted by faith in the antitype, yet had to keep on fulfilling the requirements of the law as to feasts and ceremonies and the observance of days. He was in the position of an heir but had not yet ob- gained his majority, but had to keep up the type until the antitype came. We need to get that meaning clear in our mind, because in the New Testament an argument is based on it. We have Moses who had real faith, and David and Enoch and Elijah, who had real faith, but they kept up the ceremonial law. The form was symbolic in the Mosaic law, and in the law preceding Moses. Why do we not now do as did the early people? Because the object of faith came, and the heirs of faith are now out from under the law. We are not under stewards and governors as the Old Testament people were.

I now explain the next verse: "So that the law has become our tutor to bring us unto Christ." The Greek word is compound, pais, "a child." and agogos, "a conductor." Agogos is from the verb agein, to lead, or conduct. To complete the analogy we have only to refer to the heathen custom of entrusting the care of a child in his nonage, to a slave. This slave was not necessarily the teacher, in the modern sense of pedagogue, but would lead the child to the school where the real teacher would instruct him. So the law, a slave, leads to Christ, the great teacher. In this sense the law evidently was not to annul the previous covenant of grace, but was added to it in a subsidiary or helpful sense. But now that the object of faith is come, we are no longer under the tutor. In many places Paul thus argues against any lapsing into Judaism. It was going back to the rudiments, the weak and beggarly elements of an obsolete dispensation. The whole book of Hebrews is written on that subject.

So a man who observes the seventh day instead of the first day proclaims that he is still in the Old Testament.

We come now to a thought not discussed before, Galatians 3:26: "For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." The Jews, as Jews, were not sons by faith, but sons by lineal, fleshly descent. "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." What is the force of "baptized into Christ"?

I had a Campbellite brother say to me, "You Baptists have no method of induction into Christ."

"What is your method?" I asked.

"We baptize into Christ," he said.

"How will you reply," I asked, "to the Roman Catholic when he says you Campbellites have no method of inducting Christ into you? You ask them how they induct Christ into men and they answer, ’By eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ in the mass.’ "

I reply to both, for the Catholic has better ground than the Campbellite – that each ordinance is a symbolic, pictorial induction. Baptism does not really put us into Christ. On the contrary, says Paul, "By faith we enter into this grace wherein we stand." Eating the bread and drinking the wine does not really put Christ into us, for by the Spirit Christ is put into us, or "formed in us the hope of glory." (See also 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6.) Baptism does not really put us into Christ; it is only figurative of it. Paul says, "By faith we are all children of God." By faith, and not by baptism, so that the form of being baptized into Christ is not the reality of putting us into Christ. In baptism we put on Christ, as an enlisted soldier puts on the uniform which is the external emblem, or symbol, of his enlistment.

The next verse calls for some explanation. "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." What are the distinctions between the two covenants? Under the Mosaic covenant a Jew only belonging to the nation by fleshly descent was in the covenant. But in the new covenant it is neither Jew nor Greek. There is no distinction of nationality. That is the first point. They all come in just alike, as the animals went into Noah’s ark through one door. There was just one door; the eagle had to swoop down and go in the same door that the snail crawled through.

The second point of distinction is not national, but in Christ there is no distinction between a slave and his master. Abraham’s slaves were circumcised because they belonged to him. But in the new covenant the slaves of a believer are not baptized because they belong to him. Neither the relation of children nor slaves put them in the covenant and entitles them to the ordinances. Earthly relations do not count at all in the new covenant. Here the individual alone counts. The child of a preacher must himself repent and believe and must be baptized for himself. The preacher’s wife must repent and believe and be baptized for herself. She must take no religious step because of her relation to her husband, such as joining "his church" to be with him or in order to "commune with him." This passage means even more than that. In the old covenant only the males received the token of the covenant. In the new covenant there is no distinction as to ordinances between male and female. The woman is baptized as well as the man. If one was a slave of a Jew, the law required that the slave should be circumcised, becoming a member of the covenant through circumcision. Under the new covenant, it is clearly said that there is neither bond nor free – that a slave does not come in because he is a slave belonging to some one in the covenant, but comes in on his own personal faith in Christ, just as any other sinner comes in.

I repeat that the next point of difference in that verse is one of sex. Under the Jewish covenant only the male received the token of the covenant. The woman’s position in the Mosaic covenant was a very subordinate one, but in the new covenant the woman receives the ordinance of the covenant just the same as the man. She is a human being and comes in by her own personal faith in Christ, and is received by baptism just the same as if she were a man. So we see that makes a very important distinction in the two covenants.

Galatians 3:29 needs just a word of explanation: "And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise," whether a heathen, a Jew, a Scythian, Bohemian, a man, or a woman. If one gets into Christ by faith then he belongs to Abraham’s seed – not his fleshly see, but his spiritual seed, as Paul says, "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly." The real circumcision is not the circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart. He is repeating what I have explained before: "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father." So the Old Testament saints as children were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world, that is, bound to observe those ceremonial laws of sacrifice and the entire sabbatic cycle. "But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." We are not children of God by ordinary generation. We are children of God by regeneration. When born naturally I was not in the kingdom, not in the church, not in anything religious, yet some denominations teach that the church consists of believers and their children. We don’t get in because we are the sons of some member that is in, or the slave, or the wife of somebody that is in – we do not get in that way. We come in by adoption. What is adoption? Adoption is that process of law by which one, not naturally a member of the family, is legally made a member and an heir of the family. Naturally we do not belong to God’s family. We could not call God Father.

Now comes a point more precious than any I have presented, Galatians 4:6: "And because ye are sons [by adoption, by regeneration], God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

I remember as distinctly as I can remember anything that ever came in my experience, the day, the place, and the hour when in my heart I could say for the first time, to God, "Father"; when the realization of God’s fatherhood and when the filial feeling toward God came into my soul. That was when I accepted Christ.

There was nothing in the old covenant that gave one that individual assurance, that inward witness. It could not, as it came by natural descent, but here is a very precious thing in the new covenant that to all those who by faith enter into this covenant, there is given a witness: "God’s Spirit witnesseth with our spirit that we are the children of God." The filial feeling comes to us. The first time I preached on that subject I used this illustration: If I were to go to spend a night with one of the neighbors and, not knowing his children personally, would see the children come in from school, I could tell by watching them which ones were the children of that home and which were the neighbor’s children, without asking any questions. The real child of the house has perfect freedom. There is no form nor stilts. The little girls just run right up to their mamma and say, "Give me this," or "give me that," but the neighbor’s child is more ceremonious in making requests and taking familiar liberties, because there is no filial feeling. An orphan received into a home, after having been legally adopted, will at first be shy and distant. Only when by long usage the child begins to exercise the filial feeling does he feel that be belongs there. When in such case that filial feeling begins to appear in the child there is something that somewhat answers to the Spirit’s witness to our spirits that we are children of God and may say, "Father."

As a sinner I thought of God often, that is, his holiness, his justness and his omnipotence, and the thought was more terrifying than pleasant, but as a Christian there is nothing sweeter in the heart than when I think of God as Father. It is the sweetest thought I ever had – "our Father." He is no longer dreadful to me nor distant, but the filial feeling in my heart toward God gives me a freedom of approach to him. I count that one of the most precious blessings of the new covenant.

To continue: "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods [ye were ’idolaters]: but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?" We can understand how a slave should want to step out of bondage into the privileges of sonship and heirship, but it is more difficult to understand that a son and heir should desire to go back to the position of bondage.

I heard a Baptist preacher once say that repentance is "to know God." I told him that it was much more important for God to know us than for us to know God; that our title to heaven did not consist of our being sure that we knew God, but in being sure that God knew us; that many in the last day would say, "Lord, Lord, open unto us; we have prophesied in thy name," but he will say, "You claim to know me, but I never knew you."

A passage in Paul’s letter to Timothy is much in point just here. The apostle is describing how some who once claimed to know God had made shipwreck of the faith. He rebukes the idea of our standing in God’s sight by what we know, or claim, by describing the seal of a true Christian. This seal bears a double inscription. Un one side the inscription reads: "The Lord knoweth them that are his," and on the other side the inscription reads: "Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." This gives two real tests of one’s profession: (1) Does the Lord know him to be a Christian, as Jesus says, "I know my sheep"? (2) Does he bear fruit? Does he depart from iniquity? In other words, does the sheep follow the Shepherd? The passage is 2 Timothy 2:19 where he rebukes the errorists, who had overthrown the faith of some, by saying, "Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his," and, "Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness." What a theme that is for a sermon!

We may be mistaken in thinking we are Christians, but he doesn’t make any mistakes. Spurgeon says, "Our title to salvation does not depend on our hold on Christ, but on his hold on us." We may shake loose our hold on Christ, but Christ doesn’t turn us loose. Peter turned loose and thought he was gone, but Christ did not turn loose, so Peter was not gone. That is why he changes that expression, "Rather to be known of God."

I was attending a meeting in Burleson County conducted by our Methodist friends (and they do hold some mighty good meetings), and a great many penitents went forward.

"Come into the altar and help those laboring souls," a brother said.

So I went and sat down by a man that was crying and groaning, and I said,

"My brother, what are you crying about?" He says,

"Well, I have been converted a dozen times and I always fall, and now I have fallen again." I said,

"Perhaps you are mistaken on one or the other of these points."

"No, sir; I know I am not mistaken; I know I was converted and now I have lost it."

"Then what are you crying about?" I asked. "Tears are quite useless in such a case."

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"On your statement," I replied, “your case is hopeless according to this scripture: ’For as touching those that were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.’ ”

"My friend," I added, "You see why this is so. I can neither help you nor comfort you in any way until you can give up one or the other of your positive assertions. You are making your fallible knowledge of two vital points the standard. What have I or any other preacher to present to you? If I present Christ as the only name whereby one can be saved, you say you have tried him and he failed. If I present faith as the only means of laying hold on Christ, you say you have tried that and it failed. If I present the Holy Spirit as the only one who can apply Christ’s blood and regenerate and sanctify you, you say you have tried him on all these points and he failed. I am sure I have nothing more to offer you. The only three-ply rope that can lift you to heaven you say has been broken in all its strands in your case; so there is nothing left for you but to get ready for hell."

He quit crying at once and said, "Maybe I was mistaken on one of those points."

"Just so," I replied, "and the sooner you can determine on which one the sooner I can direct you what to do. If on the first point, then seek a salvation you never had, just as any other sinner. If on the second point only, then seek healing as a backslider."

Galatians 4:10: "Ye observe days, and months, and seasons) and years." That is an unmistakable reference to the sabbatical days of the Old Testament economy – their seventh day sabbath, their lunar sabbath, their annual sabbaths and their jubilee sabbath, which means that one so doing prefers the Old Testament economy to that of the New Testament. Compare his strong teaching on this point in his letter to the Colossians (Colossians 2:20-23).

Galatians 4:11: "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." Here he questions not himself, nor what he preached, but fears that their profession was empty and vain. For if they had truly accepted Christ, why should they leave the substance for the shadow, thus practically saying that Christ had not come yet?

In Galatians 4:15 we note a question: "Where then is that gratulation of yourselves?" (American Standard). "Where then the blessedness ye spake of?" (Common Version). The point of the question is this: They counted themselves as so great beneficiaries of Paul in the first meeting that he to them was an angel from heaven, and their gratitude so great they were ready to pluck out their own eyes to give to him; it was marvelous that all this had so rapidly passed away, and a contrary attitude assumed toward him. It called for an adequate explanation which must be sought on supernatural grounds or the intervention of bewitching power. Mere fickleness of mind on their part, since he hadn’t changed, could not explain. Let the reader compare the prophet’s address to Ephraim and Judah (Hosea 6:4), and point out the expression in the famous hymn, "Oh, for a closer walk with God," based on the common version rendering of this verse.

We note another piercing question in Galatians 4:16: "Am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth?"

Many years ago I read an account of two visits of Henry Clay to Lexington, Kentucky. He was very popular in Kentucky. On one occasion the whole town turned out to welcome him. Houses were covered with banners, bands were playing "Behold the Conquering Hero Comes." Later he made a second visit to that town and they greeted him with rotten eggs.

What had changed them? Clay had not changed. A very beautiful incident occurred on that last visit. Among the crowd that was against him on the last visit was an old mountaineer, a hunter, with his long Kentucky rifle in his hand, who came up and said, "Mr. Clay, it breaks my heart to tell you. I have been standing by you all my life, but that last vote of yours in Congress has turned me, and I have to go back on you." Clay looked at him and reached out and took hold of his gun saying, "Is this a good old Kentucky rifle?" "Yes, sir; never a better." "Has it never happened when you were out hunting because there was no meat ’in the house, that you saw a big buck in easy range, and lo! your gun snapped?" "Yes, sir; it has happened." "What did you do – throw away the gun, or pick the flint and try it again?" The old hunter said, "I see the point; I’ll pick the flint and try you again."

In Galatians 4:17 Paul lays bare the motive of the authors of this sudden change: "They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them." Their object was to shut out their credulous victims from Paul that they might be sought as teachers themselves.

We come to two verses that need a little explanation: "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you" – then he stops and never does finish the sentence. There is a dash there showing that his own mind is in doubt as to whether they were false professors or backsliders. "But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you." He did not know just how to treat them – whether to present a personal Christ to them as to those never having had any real faith, or whether to try to bring them back as backsliders. He could not tell what was in their hearts. He could not read them. "I am perplexed." "If I just knew your real state, I would know how to talk to you; if, like God, I could know whether you are Christians or not I would know what to say to you." So all preachers in their experience have that perplexity of mind when dealing with some people.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the meaning of "faith" in Galatians 3:23?

2. Give several meanings of the word "faith."

3. Illustrate a misinterpretation of faith in this verse.

4. Give the financial illustration of how Old Testament saints were justified.

5. Why did they keep up the ceremonial law, and why do we not keep it?

6. Explain the law as a pedagogue unto Christ.

7. What is the force of "baptized into Christ"? Give the position of the Campbellites, Catholics, and Baptists on this point.

8. What are the distinctions between the two covenants – (1) As to nationality? (2) As to slaves and their masters? (3) As to sex?

9. What is adoption, and upon what is this legal process based?

10. How is the fatherhood of God realized? Give the author’s illustration.

11. What is the result? (See Galatians 4:6-7.)

12. What is the difference between knowing God and being known of God, which the more important, and why?

13. What inscriptions on the Christian’s seal?

14. What is the reference in Galatians 4:10, "Ye observe days, months, etc.," and what Paul’s teaching on this in Colossians 2:20-23?

15. Contrast their present attitude toward Paul with their former attitude, and illustrate.

16. Compare the prophet’s address to Ephraim and Judah, and point out the expression in "Oh, for a closer walk with God," based on the common version rendering of Galatians 4:15.

17. What the motive of the authors of this sudden change?

18. What doubt is indicated by the dash in Galatians 4:19, and what the perplexity indicated by it?