The Law Does Not Annul the Promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:15–29)

From all that the holy Apostle had said up to this point, the Galatians clearly saw that they would certainly be granted Abraham’s blessing by faith alone, apart from the Law. And it is reasonable to suppose that for Christians from among the Gentiles this finally brought peace. But in Christians from among the Jews there might arise contrary thoughts, powerful enough to shake the convictions that had formed or even to hinder them from forming. They might have thought: 1) Promises were given to Abraham for faith’s sake, and their fulfillment was conditioned by faith, because at that time there was no Law. But then the Law came and changed the conditions; so that after its institution, obtaining the promise became conditioned not by faith but by the Law. The Apostle foresaw this objection and removes it. No, he says, the Law did not nullify the power of the promise for faith (Gal. 3:15–18). But from this there arose naturally another difficulty: 2) if so, then why the Law? It is a tutor to Christ. Why, when Christ the Lord came, should it cease? Now both we (Jews) and you (Gentiles) are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:19–29).

In removing such difficulties, the holy Paul, it is reasonable to suppose, had in view chiefly the Jews, proving that the Law is not necessary even for them. But by this he also all the more convinced the Gentiles of the needlessness of the Law for them.

1) The Law does not annul the promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3:15–18)

And so they might think: let the promise be given to Abraham through faith, but afterward the Law came and perhaps annulled that promise. The holy Paul dispels this difficulty by comparing the promise to an ordinary testament among men. Just as a legally constituted and legally confirmed testament can neither be annulled by anyone nor altered by addition or subtraction, so too the promise given to Abraham, as a testament confirmed by God before the Law, could not be annulled by the Law that came so long afterward. The force of the argument lies in the word “no one”—meaning, a stranger, wherein the Law is personified. Agreeing with such an understanding, we shall encounter no difficulty, all the more so since in a comparison, as in a parable, one should not seek full correspondence of the compared objects, feature by feature. But one cannot overlook that a new difficulty naturally arises: a stranger cannot alter or annul a testament; but the testator himself, while living, can both alter and annul his own testament. The Law given through Moses is also a testament (covenant). It is given by the same Testator, God, who is ever living and has power to make every change in His promises of good to men. He gave a testament in Abraham, and it was in force; then He found it necessary to give a new testament through Moses, and perhaps only this latter became valid with the setting aside of the former. To this one may answer: the same testator can make different testaments, and as long as a subsequent testament, by no specific clause, does not annul all or part of the previous one, it remains in full force, especially when in their objects, in the persons, and in the conditions they differ from one another. The Mosaic Law is indeed a different covenant of God in relation to the covenant with Abraham; but there is no clause in it by which this latter would be annulled, as the Apostle’s words indicate: “the covenant previously established with Abraham, the Law which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul”—he does not say plainly that this Law destroys the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:17). In its content, however, the covenant with Abraham and the covenant through the holy Moses are different. The promise to Abraham embraces all mankind; the Law, however, applies exclusively to one people, the Jews; the aim of the former is to unite all by pouring out Abraham’s blessing upon all; the aim of the latter is to set apart from all peoples the Jewish people, so that in it might be preserved the blessing promised to all of Abraham’s seed until the appointed time, hidden; the condition of the former is true faith; the condition of the latter is works, among other things, as means of separation (v. 18). Thus the Law neither explicitly (that is, by a specific clause) nor implicitly (that is, by its content) annuls the promise to Abraham, leaving it in all its force.

We preface such a general survey of the entire argument of the holy Apostle Paul in verses 15–18, following the holy Fathers, who also limit all interpretation of this passage to such a survey. Thus the holy Chrysostom says: “If a man,” says the Apostle, “makes a testament, will anyone dare afterward to change it or add something to it (for that is what the word ‘ordain’ means): how much less ought this to be done in God’s covenant. To whom did God make a covenant? To ‘Abraham,’ he says, ‘were the promises made,’ and so forth…. And thus God made a covenant to Abraham, saying that the nations would receive blessing of his seed. How then can the Law destroy this blessing? Since no example can fully express the subject it represents, he therefore said: ‘I speak according to man’s custom,’ so that from the example given you might not draw anything inconsistent with God’s majesty. Consider then from the higher point of view the example given: God promised Abraham to bless the nations of his seed. But his seed according to flesh is Christ. ‘And after four hundred and thirty years the Law came.’ So, if the Law distributes blessings, life, and justification, then that promise no longer has force. But how is this? No human testament is ever destroyed by anyone, but God’s covenant became ineffectual after 430 years? For if not that covenant gives what was promised, but another one instead, then clearly it was rejected. But is there any sense in this?” A similar survey is found in Theodoret and others.

This, however, does not make unnecessary certain remarks upon each text separately from verses 15–18.

Gal. 3:15. Brothers, I speak in human terms: nevertheless, even a human covenant, once established, no one annuls or adds to it.

“Brothers.” The Apostle’s heart is softened; from the severity of rebuke he turns to fatherly exhortation. “Opportunely said: ‘Brothers,’ to those whom before this he called senseless. One should not (to those being corrected) always speak with harsh and rebuking speech; one must also sweeten it” (Ecumenius).

For explaining his subject, he takes an example from matters common among men. He does not reach for lofty contemplations, but turns to universal experience, to lift men up through it to those heights; for a mind young in knowledge of divine things is not capable of dwelling in those heights. “What I have to say, I do not speak according to divine wisdom, I do not speak as from hidden wisdom, nor as to those who are able to take solid food, but as to those who, because of the tenderness of the stomach, are still nourished on milk and cannot hear of great things (1 Cor. 3:2)” (blessed Jerome).

“Nevertheless” – that is, indeed, behold, and yet.

The thought: you know that even –

“A human testament”. Not one established by man, but a human one, one that takes place and occurs among men. The thought is directed not to the fact that it is established by man, but that it is established as it occurs among men, made according to all customary requirements, and chiefly, that it has taken effect. “A testament, well drawn up with a good purpose and in all order, is not permitted to be perverted” (blessed Theodoret). κεκυρωμένην – in some manuscripts is read: προκεκυρωμένην, as also in our Slavonic (meaning: confirmed long ago), conveys the thought of a testament formally established by lawful authority, as, for example, in our country civil decrees established by the sovereign receive the force of law for fulfillment. “And ‘human,’ which is incomparably less firm than the divine. If the testator changes the testament, he changes it while it is not yet confirmed. The death of the testator finally makes the testament confirmed, because after that there is no longer the possibility to change his intention. In God this is replaced by the immutability of His determinations” (blessed Augustine). “For all the promises of God, in Him are Yes and in Him Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20).

“No one.” According to the flow of speech, rather: no one, a stranger. And the Law is presented as an outsider, appearing later. Or no one in general, that is, it does not happen among men that someone alters an established testament. The Apostle’s aim is to convince through comparison of the immutability of God’s promises. The force of the speech lies in: “established,” that is, in the sense of having entered into the force of law. All other circumstantial terms are not of great significance.

“Annuls or ordains.” “Annuls” means completely abrogates; “ordains” means adds new clauses that alter the meaning and significance of the earlier ones. This latter is presupposed according to the Apostle’s purpose in speaking.

Gal. 3:16. Now to Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. It does not say ‘and to seeds,’ as referring to many, but as referring to one, ‘and to your seed,’ who is Christ.

In the holy Apostle at this place there is a complete syllogism. The previous verse contains the principal proposition, the major premise; the present verse, the subordinate proposition, the minor premise; the following one, the conclusion. Previously he said: a testament, long established and having entered into the force of law, no one annuls. Now he says: but to Abraham was given a testament. Then he will say: consequently, it cannot be annulled. But since the testament given to Abraham had a special form, namely, it was given as a promise, the holy Paul speaks of it thus, explaining at the same time what object the promise concerned, or what its essence was. Then in the conclusion he introduces these new explanatory concepts.

“To Abraham were the promises made.” “Promises” stands in place of testament, as expected according to the flow of speech. In substance both are one and the same. A testament makes an heir, that is, the possessor of certain goods; and a promise promises goods, of which the possessor becomes he upon whom the promise is fulfilled. What promises were made to Abraham has already been said, namely, that through him and his seed, or because of his seed, all nations would be blessed. Since the promise is fulfilled through the seed, this word required in the Apostle’s discourse a more precise definition. He does this. The seed, he says, here means not the entire people, not all the descendants of Abraham, but one Person from the descendants, namely Christ the Lord. But to explain this the Apostle does not make distant reasonings; he takes the very letter of the promise and from it makes his inference.

“It does not say ‘seeds,’ as if referring to many, but as referring to one, ‘your seed,’ who is Christ.”

Although the Apostle attaches his explanation to the letter; the letter itself is of such a nature that even in its place, in the text of the promise, it cannot be understood otherwise. The promises to Abraham were expressed thus: “I will multiply your seed, I will give you this land.” These are fleshly promises. But to this was always added: “and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:2–3, 7; Gen. 17:2; Gen. 18:18; Gen. 22:17–18). This could not be fleshly. Although in the word to Abraham it was not clear how this could be fulfilled, the power of speech was such that it of itself led to the thought of a certain Person of Abraham’s seed, standing out from the ordinary line, from whom blessing would be poured out upon all nations. The believing heart of Abraham’s most worthy descendants felt this truth and prompted them to await such a Person; the Prophets pointed to Him plainly; and all Israel in this seed beheld the Messiah awaited by all. The holy Apostle in his explanation takes the universal belief of Abraham’s most worthy descendants, sanctified by the Spirit acting in the Prophets. His word, in form, clings only to the letter; but in substance contains a fully sufficient explanation of the meaning of the promise given to Abraham.

Blessed Theodoret writes: “God promised to bless all nations by the seed of Abraham; and this seed is the Lord Christ Himself. For by Him this promise was brought to fulfillment, and the nations received the blessing. But all others, even those who attained the very highest virtue: Moses, Samuel, Elijah – in short, all who trace their descent from Israel by nature, although they are also called the seed of Abraham, yet are not the seed that brought forth the source of blessing for the nations. This the Apostle declares (in the words of verse 16). Not because they too trace their descent from Abraham, as though they are the seed meant. In the proper sense Christ has this designation, as the Only One who, according to the promise, was to bestow blessing upon the nations. God said: ‘in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’ (Gen. 22:18). But from none other did the nations receive this blessing.”

Ambrosiaster expresses the thought that to understand this promise otherwise is to forge a testament. “This promise,” he writes, “is fulfilled in Christ, in whose name all nations are blessed through faith. By this reasoning the Apostle shows that those who, while believing in Christ, still hope for something from the Law, do as it were forge a testament, as though salvation were promised not in Christ alone, but also in the Law. Therefore he affirms that the promise of blessing is given in Christ alone.”

Gal. 3:17. Now this I say: the covenant previously confirmed with a view to Christ, the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul, so as to make the promise void.

Here is the conclusion from the two previous propositions. Now this I say – thus I wish to say that “the covenant previously confirmed,” long established and having entered into the force of law, “with a view to Christ,” – not about Christ, but directed toward Christ: all the promise aimed at Christ in its object, purposes, and power, and was given by God with foreknowledge that justification awaited the Gentiles through faith in Christ, in which consists the promised blessing of the nations, as the Apostle said above (verse 8), – this covenant the Law, which came so long afterward, 430 years, “does not annul,” οὐκ ἀκυροῖ – does not disannul, in opposition to προκεκυρωμένην, confirmed previously – “so as to make the promise void,” καταργῆσαι – which in application to buildings expresses the common phrase: to level with the ground, to destroy to the foundation, – to utterly annihilate the promise, to make it as though it did not exist.

In this conclusion it would have been sufficient to say: therefore, no one can annul or alter the promise to Abraham either. But the holy Apostle surrounds it with all related concepts, to present a fully rounded thought, according to his purposes.

The four hundred and thirty years God Himself determined when He gave the promise concerning Isaac. In what manner these years were actually fulfilled by the events of history is an unimportant matter. In Exodus, chapter 12 (verse 40), this number of years determines the time of the sojourn of the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan (before the migration to Egypt).

Gal. 3:18. For if the inheritance is from the Law, it is no longer from the promise; but God gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Having established that the covenant given to Abraham in the promise cannot be annulled, the Apostle, to strengthen his conclusion, adds: but if, as you judge, the obtaining of the promise is made dependent on submission to the Law of Moses, then the promise is destroyed. For if obtaining what is promised as an inheritance depends on the Law, then it is no longer by virtue of the promise; but God gave Abraham this advantage, that through his seed all nations should receive blessing, apart from all conditions, by the sole gracious covenant promise.

Here the term “inheritance” is introduced because of the comparison of the promise to a testament. What is received by testament is called an inheritance; the holy Apostle calls an inheritance also what is received by the promise, which he has identified with a testament. The Gentiles now, by the will of the gracious God, enter through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ into the inheritance of what God bequeathed to their portion in the promise to Abraham. For the Law to have any participation or significance in this is wholly unsuitable, contrary to God’s intentions. And whoever does this destroys the entire arrangement of God. “If the promise declares that blessing will come through Christ, and yet instead of Christ the Law will give blessing, then God’s covenant with Abraham is destroyed – to no purpose” (Ecumenius). “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 but destruction of the promise, which is absurd” (blessed Theophylact).

Let us make two or three excerpts from the patristic commentaries, which clarify the entire reasoning of the holy Apostle set forth in these verses.

The holy Damascene writes: “The thought of the holy Apostle in these words is this: it was covenanted with Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed. This seed is Christ according to the flesh. After 430 years from this covenant, the Law came. So, if this Law gives blessing, life, and justification, then that covenant will be to no purpose. It follows that, whereas no one annuls a human covenant, God’s covenant became ineffectual after 430 years. For if that which the covenant promised is given not by it, but by another – namely the Law – then by this the covenant is annulled. And with what is this consistent?”

Here are the words of blessed Augustine: “When the promise was given, the Law had not yet been given, and after so long a time it could not be given in such a way as to make the preceding promise to Abraham void. This compels us to recognize also that all the ancients who were justified, were justified (not properly by the Law, but) by faith (acting in it covertly). We are saved by believing partly in the past, that is, in the first coming of the Lord, partly in the future, that is, in the second coming of the Lord. But they believed in all this, that is, in both comings, as future, by revelation of the Holy Spirit, so as to be saved. Thence also the following saying of the Lord: Abraham desired to see My day; and he saw and rejoiced (Jn. 8:56).”

Ambrosiaster reasons thus: “The Jews defend two contradictory positions. They cannot in any way be convinced that the promise to Abraham was not annulled by the Law; but they themselves, in contradiction to this, stubbornly maintain that justification is impossible without works of the Law, knowing that Abraham, the type of justification, was justified by faith alone without works of the Law. Being blinded by a kind of zeal, they do not understand and cannot grasp that if justification depends on the Law, then thereby the promise is destroyed; and if the promise is destroyed, then undoubtedly faith in Abraham becomes vain: which Jews cannot even hear to, knowing that the promise to Abraham came by faith. The heirs of the promise to Abraham are the successors of his faith, for the sake of which Abraham himself was blessed and justified. These successors are believers in Christ. The gift promised to Abraham is communicated to his children through faith in Christ.”

Was not the Law given so long after the promise precisely to show by this very interval between them that the Law is one thing and the promise to faith is another? From the course of events it is evident that the Law served faith: it was given so that the promise, which was conditioned on the faith of Abraham or faith like his, might in its time come to fulfillment. The Law could not have any independent significance.