Baugh - Covenant of Redemption

7/31/2019 Baugh - Covenant of Redemption

1/23

WTJ66 (2004): 49-70

GALATIANS 3:20 AND THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION

S. M. BAUGH

I. Introduction

Theological reflection upon an eternal, intratrinitarian covenant betweenthe Father, Son, and HolySpirit has been an integral part of covenant theology

from its early days. True, there have been differences of opinion about how

sharply this pact, often called the covenant (or council) of redemption, can be

distinguished from the covenant of grace which was "made with Christ as the

second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed" (WestminsterLargerCate

chism Q/A 31).1 Nevertheless, the consensus among Reformed theologians of

the past is that such an intratrinitarian, eternal covenant does exist and is evi

denced in Scripture, regardless of howclosely these individual theologians connect it to the promised and historically ratified covenant of grace.2

S. M. Baugh isAssociate Professor of New TestamentatWestminsterSeminaryCalifornia, Escondid1 In a well-known statement, Charles Hodge finds different positions in this regard in the West

minster standards; see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology(1872; repr., 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eer-

dmans, 1981), 2:357-58. See also, e.g., Thomas Boston: "The covenant of redemption and the

covenant ofgrace, are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant. I knowthat many

divines do express themselves otherwise in this matter" (AViewof the Covenant ofGraceFrom the Sacr

Records[1734; repr., Lewes, England: Focus Christian Ministries, 1990], 24). Compare Robert L.

Dabney: "I hold that this subject cannot be treated intelligibly without distinguishing the covenant

existing from eternity between the Father and Son,fromthat Gospel promise of salvation on terms

of true faith offered to sinners through Christ" (Syllabusand Notesof the Course ofSystematic and Polem

Theology [2d ed.; St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing, 1878; repr. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,

1985], 432). For a lucid discussion relating to Jonathan Edwards's mediating position, see Carl W.

Bogue,Jonathan Edwards andthe CovenantofGrace (CherryHill, N.J.: Mack, 1975), 95-113. John vo

Rohr (The CovenantofGrace in Puritan Thought[AARStR, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 43-46)

presents the idea of a covenant of redemption distinguishable from the covenant of grace as the

Puritan consensus without seeming to be aware of the nuances represented among those divines.

For a more recent presentation of the covenant of redemption, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theol-

ogy(4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939 and 1941), 265-71.2 E.g., C. Olevianus, Z. Ursinus, J. Owen, J. Cocceius, D. Dicksen, and J. Durham (authors of


2/23


3/23

GALATIANS 3:20 51

What makes Hoeksema's viewpoint interesting to me is twofold. First, Ifound his examination and interpretation of the Scripture passages that have

been commonly adduced to substantiate the pactum salutis to be correct in manycases. Statements like "I have kept you and given you as a covenant to thepeople" (Isa 49:8; RSV) do not directly identify a covenant between the Father,the pre-incarnate Son, and the Holy Spirit, but are really directed to Christ inhis incarnate existence as covenant mediator. Whether the divine commitmentitself to give the incarnate Son as a covenant for the people may refer by necessary inference to an intratrinitarian counsel or compact is another question, butsurely the word "covenant" in Isa 49:8 and in other passages refers to the new

covenant, that is, to the covenant of grace in its historical fulfillment in the person and work of Christ. Second, Hoeksemafindsthe idea ofthepactum salutis inthe trinitarian personhood of God rather than in his unity. The thesis of thisarticle, however, is that Paul clearly relies upon an intratrinitarian pactum precisely because of the divine unity. I find this interesting, because, although Iagree with many of Hoeksema's exegetical conclusions concerning the pactum

salutis, I do not share his theological rationale. It is a remarkable twist at least.

Given these considerations, then, is there any Scriptural warrant for holding

to some form of a pactum salutis in the classic Reformed sense? There are twopassages of Scripture which have not traditionally been connected with this doctrine that present interesting possibilities. Thefirstis one which deserves its ownfull treatment elsewhere: the oath ofPs 110:4 appointing the pre-incarnate Sonto his high priesthood. This passage is especially significant given that an oathidentifies covenant phenomenon in the Bible and that the book of Hebrewsidentifies the appointment and exercise of this priesthoodasconstituting the newcovenant. The other text possibly supporting the pactum salutis is Gal 3:20, a

classic bcus Pauli diffillimus. This is the text we will explore.As mentioned, Gal 3:20 itselfhas not previously been invoked as evidence for

the intratrinitarian arrangement, although previous covenant theologians haveso used the "Seed" promise in Gal 3:16 and 19.9 A less compelling argumentwas sometimes advanced that the "previous ratification" of Gal 3:17 refers tothis intratrinitarian pact lying back of the historical covenants.101 hope to showthat the pactum salutis is the capstone for Paul's argument in Gal 3:15-22, specifically in v. 20. When this is accepted, several of this passage's most confusing

elements come into clearer focus. Hence, Gal 3:20 can be seen as biblical warrant for an mtratrinitarian pactum as described in classic covenant theologyth h f l i d d d i f


4/23

52 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

II. Galatians 3:15-22 Today

Current opinions on Gal 3:15-22, and on w. 19-20 in particular, are unitedonly in that these verses are "among the most difficult in Paul."11 Daniel Wallace illustrated this in an essay entided "Galatians 3:19-20: A Crux Interpretern forPaul's View ofthe Law" in the Westminster TheologicalJournalwhen he spent thebulk ofhis space on v. 19 and admits at the end: "Indeed, I have yet to arrive ata fully satisfactory view ofv. 20."12

The real difficulty of Gal 3:20 is not in understanding its grammar or itsmeaning in isolationthat is quite clear. Rather, the snarl comes in seeing howthis verse contributes to Paul's argument or has anything whatsoever to do with

the context. All ofthis illustrates why Gal 3:20 has generated a number of different interpretations by NT scholars who sometimes say tongue-in-cheek thatthere are 430 different interpretations ofthis one verse alone.13

Despite the radical diversity ofopinions on the meaning ofGal 3:20, thereare a few common points ofinterpretation today which may actually contributeto the passage's obscurity. One prominent point is that w. 19-20 are seen as partof an overall argument by Paul to show that the Mosaic Law is "inferior" to thepromise, or evenflawed.For example:

Because w. 19b-20 occurs in the midst ofan argument that the law is inferior to faith,and in particular after the statement that the law was provisional, it seems that theseremarks are intended to disparage the law. In general the reference to the involvementofangels and a mediator in the giving of the lawmust tell against the law by distancingit from God. V 20 seems designed to explain why the presence ofa mediator, at least,is a point against the law, but it does so in a strikingly inscrutable way.14

I will make the case that Paul's point is not to demonstrate the law's mferiorty,nor to "disparage" it because it was given by mediation angelic or human. It isthis line ofreasoning that contributes to making w. 19-20 "strikingly inscru

table." Rather, Paul is simply asserting the Mosaic law's inability to mediate the

II . Wright, "The Seed and the Mediator: Galatians 3.15-20," in TL Climaxofthe Covenant:

Christ andthe Lawin Pauline TTieobgy(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 157.1 2

Daniel Wallace, "Galatians 3:19-20: A CruxInterpretum for Paul's Viewof the Law," WTJ52

(1990): 225-45, quotation from p. 229.1 3

Deriving the numberfromthe 430 years in Gal 3:17, of course. See Richard Longenecker,

Galatians(WBC 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 141. For reviews of current opinions see Terranee

D. Callan, Jr., "The Law and the Mediator: Gal 3:19b-20" (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976),

1-30; Wallace, "Galatians 3:19-20," 225-29; and Harald Riesenfeld, "The Misinterpreted Media

tor in Gal 3:19-20," in TLNewTestamentAge: Essaysin Honor of Bo Reiche (ed. William G. Weinrich;Macon, Ga.: Mercer UniversityPress, 1984), 2:405-12.

1 4


5/23

GALATIANS 3:20 53

promises of God's covenant. These promises are based upon an eternal, intratrinitarian covenant which cannot be mediated. In other words, Paul addressesthe Mosaic law's true purpose and denies the function and purpose implied byhis opponents who insist on "law-keeping" (pya , Gal 3:10) to please God.This difference of overall perspective is subtle, but important for clarifying thepassage.

Secondly, there is a tendency in today's interpretation to read v. 20 only inconnection with the previous verse rather than running it directlybackthrough

v. 15 and ahead to v. 22. Not all interpreters do this, of course, but the tendencyis there, and it does not help the interpretation of the difficult v. 20.15

Finally, manyof today's interpreters do not take the trinitarian implications

presented in this passage seriously enough. . Wright calls it a "theologicalbalancing act" to see that "God acts in fact on both sides of the covenant, orthat Paul is here making an implicit claim for the divinityof Christ."16 It is nicethat he notices this possibilityfew others do, or they fail to say so if theydobut his rejection of the idea is, perhaps, prematurelyoff-handed.17

That being said, the various interpretations of Gal 3:20 popular today can beseen as variations on two different positions. The first sees Paul as disparagingthe law by charging it as being revealed by way of mediation, whereas Godspoke his covenant directlyto Abraham without going through a mediator. This

viewclaims that mediation somehow makes revelation inferior for Paul or hiscontemporaries. The second popular interpretation is guided by a social analysis of Paul. It says that Paul invokes the oneness of God in order to support hiscontention that the Church consists of one people of God, both Jew and Gentile together, not two separate groups. On this view, Paul's main problem withthe law is not a juridical issue but a social one: the law created a separation

between Jew and Gentile by erecting practices like circumcision, cleanness, and

15

For instance, Wallace suggests that any interpretation of v. 20 is closelydependent upon theinterpretation of v. 19: "[M]ost of the 300 or so interpretations of this verse can be tossed once a

particular viewof v. 19 is adoptedhence, v. 19 does function as a sort of 'qualitycontrol* over v. 20"

("Galatians 3:19-20," 243). See Heinrich Schlier {DerBriefan die Galater[Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1962], 151) who emphasizes the connection between w. 19-20 with the following w. 21-29. Wright's essay ("The Seed and the Mediator") is aconspicuous attempt tofitv. 20 into a readingof w. 15-16.

16 Wright, "The Seed and the Mediator," 159. Wright cites Herman Ridderbos in this connection (VieEpistleof Paul to tL Churches of Galatia N1CNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953], 138-40),who writes of Gal 3:20: "God was at work alone: for He is not only the author of the promise; Hefulfills it also" whereas "man is the subject of fulfillment" of the law (p. 140). And further: "ThatNew Testament concept [of diawke]points to a salvation whose benefits are guaranteed by Godand as a matter of fact are actually given, because in Christ and through Him the conditions of the


6/23


food regulations, which served to keep Israel separate from the other nations.Galatians 3:20, on this interpretation, is merely saying that the Christianchurch, in contrast, is one united people of God just as God is one.18

In contrast, the interpretation offered here will make the case that Paul'sanalogy between a human last will and the divine covenant indicates that theoverarching point of Gal 3:15-22 is the law's inability to mediate the promise.Paul makes the point in w. 15-18 by way of analogy and in w. 19-20 by callingon God's essential unity. In a nutshell, when Paul says, "Now a mediator is not[mediator] for one party, whereas God is one," he is arguing that the law, represented by its mediator, Moses, cannot mediate the promise made to Abrahamand to his seed, because the promisor, God the Father, and the promisee, God

the Son who would come as Messianic Seed, are one in the divine Being. TheFather made his promissory oath to the covenant Head in whom all his promises are refracted (2 Cor 1:19-20). And until that One should come into theworld, no third party could intervene, because the first two parties to thistransactionthe pactum salutisare actually one in inseparable divinity. Let usnow put the case.

III. The Testamentary Analogy: Galatians 3:15

Historically, diathke m Gal 3:15 has been taken three different ways: (1) asreferring to a human last will and testament (e.g., Ridderbos, Bruce); (2) as referring to a human covenant (e.g., Calvin, Lightfoot); and (3) as referring to an irrevocable living grant in Jewish practice (E. Bammel).19 Part ofthe difficulty arisesbecause diathke may refer to any of these legal instruments. As is often discussed,it refers most often in Greco-Roman law to a testamentary disposition, whereasin the LXX it is the most common rendering of Hebrew berth, "covenant" (e.g.,ZDJVT2.106-34).

Paul invokes a human "last will and testament" (diathke) in v. 15 in order toillustrate the inviolability of the divine covenant {diathke) and its promises toAbraham and to his seed (w. 16-19). Paul explicitlyshows thathe is usingan analogy with the phrases and ... , "give a human example... no one annuls even a man's will" (Gal 3:15; RSV).20

In essence, Paul's use ofthis testamentary analogyis not much different from hisuse in Gal 4:1 -5 of the position of a son and heir in a Greco-Roman household,

who was indistinguishable during his minorityfrom his slaves, "even though heis lord over all," to illustrate the position of Israel under the law.

1 8The basic interpretive options proposedfromMarcion to the present are surveyed in Gallan,


7/23

GALATIANS 3:20 55

Paul's use of diathke as a last will to illustrate the divine diathke ("covenant")is particularly appropriate not only because the word diathkmay refer to either

one, but also because both are legal instruments for communication of aninheritance. Note especially that the covenant ceremony of Gen 15:7-21 withAbram was to secure his heir (Heb. yoresh) from among his own "seed" ratherthan Eliezar of Damascus (Gen 15:2-6).

For Paul's testamentary analogy to work, however, we must understand howit is that "no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified" (Gal 3:15; RSV).21 A debate was sparked a century ago on this score,because it was well known that Greco-Roman law did allow a testator to revokeor add a codicil to his last will and testament.22 For example, one of the leading

participants in the debate was William Ramsay, who says:It is here plainly stated that when the Will has been properly executed with all legalformalities, no person can make it ineffective or add any further clause or conditions.It is not a correct explanation to say that "no person" means "no other," for the argument is that a subsequent document executed by the same person does not invalidatethe former. We are confronted with a legal idea that the duly executedWill cannot berevoked by a subsequent act of the testator.23

21 The three verbal forms found in Gal 3:15b, ("ratify," "validate"; see and in v. 17), ("annul"), and ("add to"; or better, "adda codicilto a will"

BDAG) are appropriate terms for testamentary dispositions and other legal instruments (see esp.

TDNT 3.1098-1100 and 8.158-59). Bruce's comment (Galatians, 170) that a will is validated

() onlyon the testator's death runs counter to an adjective form related to found in

the stockphrase in papyri willsfromEgypt: , "this will is valid" (see 3.1098

for reference to a few examples) and from explicit clauses where the testator declares his ability"to

emend, to alter, and to revoke this will" ( [ -

] ) [POxy. 491]the idea of is expressed by elsewhere

[POxy. 490]. ( is probablyderivedfromthis adjective form; Greek omicron contract

verbs frequentlyoriginate as causitives for a noun or adjective: "cause to become ," "vali

date"; see BDAG who derive from , "supreme power.") For a general discussion of

the various kinds and character of testamentary dispositions, the standard workis still: RaphaelTaubenschlag, TLLawofGrm-RomanE^tmtLLightoftLPapyri332B. C-640A.D. (2d ed.; War

saw, 1955), 190-209.2 2

See Gerhard Thr, "Diatheke," DerNeue Pauly: Enzyklopdie derAntike (Stuttgart and Weimar:J. B. Metzler, 1997), 3:530, who writes: "Der Erblasser konnte, auch ohne bes. TestamentarischenVorbehalt, seine d[iatheke]bis zu seinem Tode ndern oder aufheben Die nderung oder Aufhebung der d. geschah durch eine sptere d.} die aber die Aufhebung der frheren ausdrcklichaussprechen musste, anderenfalls galten beide d. nebeneinander." Explicit testamentary provisosand revocations of wills are common in the Greco-Roman willsfromEgypt in the papyri. POxy. 107,for instance, is of particular interest. Wills in Egypt were deposited in the office of public records

(), so that a testator who wished to revoke a will had to request its return from thatoffice. POxy. 107 is a receipt made out by the testator for the return of his will from the clerkof

public records where he acknowledges: "I received


8/23

56 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICALJOURNAL

Ramsay's explanation is that earlier Greek law preserved under the Seleucids inSyria did not allowa testator to revoke or radicallyalter a registered will. Ramsay

said that we can presume that this was the form of law still in force in the Galatianregion in the eastern provinces to which Paul was writing.While Ramsay's position was certainly an ingenious solution to a perceived

exegetical and historical problem, it makes Paul's use of testamentary law moretechnical than I believe is necessary. There is no reason to think that Paul wasan expert in subde points of Greco-Roman law or that he was leading a technical discussion in Greco-Roman law in this passage. It would have been aremarkable feat for him to do so, because provincial law was quite fluid in themid-first century due to prevailing local customs and direct and indirect inroads

of Roman practices. Even legal experts of the time did not get everything rightor conform precisely to correct testamentary procedures.24 And Paul's maininterest in Gal 3:15 was merely to illustrate the greater issue of the divineadministration of redemption with an allusion to legal practice as understood

by anynon- lawyer in antiquity(or today). In the end, the debate on the kind oftestamentary law alluded to in Gal 3:15 deflects us from understanding Gal3:15-22 properly and from the main point of Paul's analogy.

I believe that it is better to see Paul's "no person" or "no one" () prevented from changing or altering a will in the analogyas referring to the Mosaic

law as in principle a kind of third party in the matter. This will be explainedbelow, but the evidence for this view must be looked at briefly.

The extant last wills found in the Egyptian papyri often include explicitnotice that "no one" is to "transgress" the will's provisions. The followingextract illustrating this point and some other features of ancient wills importantfor Gal 3:15-22 is from a copy of the will of a certain Acusilaus from A.D.156:

So long as I survive I am to have power over myproperty, tomake whatever disposition I choose and to alter and revoke the present will, and whatever disposition I make

shall be valid Anything that I append to the officially returned copy of the will,whether cancelling or supplementing or making bequests to other persons or with anyother purpose, shall also be valid as if contained in the actual will; beyond this no oneshall have anypower at all to infringe it, and the partywho infringes it shall forfeit tothe party who abides by it the damages and a penalty of 2 silver talents and to theTreasury the like sum, the above provisions remaining none the less valid. This will is

valid. (POxy. 494)25

2 4 A sufficient example for both points can be found in the younger Pliny, a Roman advocate

before becoming Trajan's special governor of Bithynia, who failed out of ignorance to follow special Egyptian regulations regarding acquisition of Roman citizenship for a freedman physician (Ep.

10.5-6,10-11), and who showed willingness to bend testamentary rules when acting as executor (Ep.


9/23

GALATIANS 3:20 57

The phrase specifying that "no one" () has the power to "transgress"() the stipulations of the will is a common feature of Greco-Roman

wills.26

Other examples from Oxyrhynchus sometimes specify in this clause thatno one maytamper with the will , "for setting it aside" (e.g., POxy.492, 9; 493, 9) which may connect with in Gal 3:15.1 am not suggestingthat Paul is referring specifically to these formulaic clausesas I said, he is not

being so technicalbut this bertretungsverbotclause communicates a commonlyunderstood, universal feature oflast wills: no one but the testator could alter orrevoke his will, which was a matter involving his patria or domestica potestas.27

We should, then, regard the "no one" of Gal 3:15 as referring to someoneother than the testator in Paul's analogy. It should be noted that this interpretation is not unanimously accepted as illustrated by this comment from S. R.Llewelyn:

Another suggested solution is that Paul's use of (Gal. 3.15) referred not to thetestator himselfbut to all those others who did not have the legal capacity to annul the

will. The problem with this suggestion is that the illustration remains problematic, forsurelyits point is to showthat the lawdoes not annul the promise. However, both thelaw and the promise are the dispositions ofthe same God. The lawis not a subsequentattempt (even though mediated through angels) by a second person to annul the

promise made by God.28

As I hope to show, the problem Llewelyn sees for taking as someoneother than the testator is precisely the point for which Paul is using the testamentaryillustration. Paul is presenting the law here as a sort of foreign principle to the promissory arrangement, and, hence, as not having legal groundingto annul, alter, or to add different provisions to the terms of the original disposition. Paul is calling up a human analogy onlyfor that one point; he is notgiving an allegorywhere each element in the story corresponds to realitypointfor point. This sort ofthing occurs elsewhere in Paul, for instance, in Rom 7:1-4

where Paul uses marriage and the death of a marriage partner to illustrate the

' [] -

, [, ]

, . Text and translation from Hunt

and Edgar, SelectPapyri(LL; Cambridge and London: Harvard UniversityPress and William Heine-

mann, 1932), 1:244-49, no. 84.2 6 This clause was specifically aimed at one of the heirs who might try to alter the will in his

favor See esp G Klamp "Das Testament der Taharpaesis: Eroflhungsprotokoll eines griechischen


10/23


death of the believer to the law, or further on in Rom 7:7-9 where sin is hyposta-

sized into a kind of bandit waiting in ambush for the unsuspecting Paul in order

to put him to death. In these cases and in Gal 3:15like parables in theGospelsthe analogy of the illustration does not give a comprehensive expla

nation of all elements of the reality illustrated.

IV The "Seed": Galatians3:16

Moving from Gal 3:15 to 3:16 seems to move from the kettle into the fire.

Doesn't Paul ignore the original intent in the Abrahamic "seed" promise to the

collective seed by limiting it to the one Seed, Christ? "Now the promises werespoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, And to seeds,5 as referring

to many, but rather to one, And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (NASB).29 There

are, as to be expected, many explanations for Paul's procedure and intent here.

It is possible tofindprecedent in Jewish exegesis for taking the "seed" promise

in Genesis to refer to a single "seed," Isaac, as well as to the plural descendants

ofIsrael.30 While the aposde may have compressed his interpretation a little bit,

there are other indicators in Gal 3 and 4 which show why he regards the "seed"

promises as Christocentric.The first and main foundation of Paul's argument is that the promises to

Abraham were originally given with an orientation to their fulfillment in Christ,

who came in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Luke 1:72-73) as the child

of promise (Luke 1:54-55). Paul says as much when he points out in Gal 3:8 that

the promise was originally announced to Abraham as a "pre-preaching of the

gospel" () with a future orientation to the "fullness of times"

when God would send his own Son (Gal 4:4).31 By adding the here to

, averb

that Paul uses so often for his own announcement of themessage of Christ (e.g., Gal 1:8), he shows the continuity of the promise to

Abraham with his own gospel as well as the fact that it was originally given as a

proleptic announcement oriented toward the future fulfillment in Christ. Like

wise, the land promise itself was only a token that Abraham was to be heir of

the world (Rom 4:13), so that the "land of promise" (Heb 11:9) should really be

viewed as a token of the world to come (Heb 11:8-10,13-16; see 2:5; Rev21-22,

esp. 21:3, 7). This orientation to future fulfillment in the original revelation to

Abraham undergirds Paul's interpretation of the "seed" promises as having

their center in the Messianic Seed.


11/23

GALATIANS 3:20 59

A second foundation for Paul's interpretation of the "seed" promise in Gal

3:16 is a federal (i.e., covenantal) principle. In older scholarship, there was dis

cussion ofthe notion of "corporate solidarity" between Christ and his people.32

Albert Schweitzer took this solidarity in a mystical way, but it is nothing other

than a covenantsolidarity between the federal surety, mediator, or head with his

people which is so fundamental to covenant theology(Rom 5:12-21 ; Heb 7:22;

etc.). This idea may be illustrated in modern law by a statutory agent's repre

senting a corporation, upon whom, among other things, process may be

served.33

Furthermore, note how the focus passes from Christ as one of the seed of

Abraham in v. 16 to v. 19 where he is the main holder of the promise. This isexpressed in the perfect tense form of in the phrase &

, "until the seed should come for whom the promise was

reserved." The perfect tense focuses upon the pending status and validity of the

promise rather than on its historical issuance as would the aorist (cp.

ai in v. 16).34 In other words, once the promise was given, the Seed

to whom it was primarilygiven possessed it until he came. This is another clear

indication that Christ is for Paul the center of all of God's promises, who, in the

eternal counsel of God was foreknown to be the Seed to come (e.g., 1 Pet 1:20).

Finally, Paul has good precedent for taking "seed" to have both a collectiveand a singular, eschatological referent. This interplayis found in thefirstprom

ise regarding a "seed" (Heb. zero?) in Gen 3:15: "I will put enmity between you

and the woman and between your seed [collective] and her seed [collective]; he

[singular]shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his [singular] heel" (RSV).

See also Gen 4:25 where Eve states that God has "appointed for me another

seed" [Seth; Heb. zero?]in place ofAbel. A similar interplay between the collec

tive and singular referent to "seed" is found in the Davidic covenantal promise

at 2 Sam 7:12.35

3 2H. Wheeler Robinson popularized this notion in his Corporate Personalityin AncientIsrael(1935;

repr., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). Aform of this idea is still prominent in . T. Wright's ideas. See

also this comment on Gal 3:16 by Richard Longenecker: "The apostle is not just forcing a generic

singular into a specific mold [in Gal 3:16].... Rather, he is invoking a corporate solidarityunder

standing ofthe promise to Abraham and the true representative ofhis people, and the Messiah's elect

ones, as sharers in his experiences and his benefits, are seen as the legitimate inheritors of God's

promises." Longenecker, BiblicalExegesis in theApostolicPeriod(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 124.3 3

Mythanks to Mr. Richard Ball, Attorneyat Law, for this illustration. For OT and LXX refer

ences to the concept of surety and acting as a pledge see Gen 43:9; 44:32; Prov6:1,3; 17:18; 19:28;22:26; 28:17; Sir 8:13; 29:14, 19; and Tobit 6:13.

3 4 BDAG renders the phrase: "the offspring for h the promise was intended" (q v


12/23


So then, Paul's interpretation of the "seed" promises as referring ultimatelyto Christ as the fundamental Promisee of the Abrahamic covenant is a use of

federal representation in principle, but he looks at it in reverse. If it is onlythrough federal union with Christ by faith that we can become the "seed" of

Abraham in order to receive the true inheritance of eternal lifeas Paul clearlysays in Gal 3:7, 29, and elsewherethen one can truly say that promises givento the collective "seed" belong fundamentally to the representative Seedthrough whom all promises are "yes" and "amen" (2 Cor 1:20). This principleof representative union is intertwined throughout our chapter of Galatians,particularly in Christ's taking upon himself the curse of the law by federalimputation (Gal 3:13). Paul knows that the singular word "seed" () can

have a collective (plural) reference, since he uses it with that sense in Gal 3:29for the true "seed" ofAbraham who become by faith "heirs according to promise." He is not running roughshod over the Genesis revelation, but interpretingits genuine Christological orientation.

V Abraharnic Covenant IsInviolable: Galatians3:17-18

With the statement, "Now I say this" ( ), Paul shows that he isconcluding his testamentary analogy with its bearing on the divine covenant

with Abraham.36 He indicates that the theological issue is rooted in redemptivehistory here by mentioning the 430-year interval and by saying that God had"previously ratified" () the Abrahamic covenant by the time thatthe law "came into being" ().37 The term () is not the normalterm for "cutting" a covenant in the LXX (i.e., inaugurating it; Heb. karat);rather is regularly used, as, for instance, the LXX of Gen 15:18 forthe "cutting" of the Abrahamic covenant.38 Paul uses the term "(previously)ratify" here in order to establish a linkwith the "last will and testament" anal

ogyin v. 15 and to show further that this is what he had in mind with his analogy, even though in 3:17 refers to the covenantalarrangement. Thislatter point is clear also from the mention of the 430-year span from Abrahamto the giving of the Mosaic law. What God established with Abraham was acovenant, which resembles a last will in that this covenant was an instrument forconveying the inheritance, but the covenant is also a broader instrument than atestament since it includes the notion of an oath-bound obligation which God

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 54-55, who notes that although the referent to "seed" in Gen 3:15 is col

lective, "Still, indirecdy the possibility is hinted at that in striking the fatal blowthe seed of thewoman will be concentrated in one person" (p. 54). On Jesus as the consummate seed of David see

especiallyJohn 7:42; Rom 1:3; and 2 Tim 2:8


13/23

GALATIANS 3:20 61

imposed upon himself "to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise the inviola

bility of his counsel" (Heb 6:17) as well as the personal bond to be God to Abra

ham and to his seed (Gen 17:7-8, etc.).

39

VI. The Law asPersonalObligation

At this point, we must deal with a key point for understanding this passage.When Paul writes that the law( ) could not nullifythe previously instituted,divine covenant with Abraham, he avoids referring to the Mosaic lawas a "cove

nant," which it most clearly was.40 With this deft stroke, Paul shows that he is notthinking ofthe whole Mosaic revelation, which elsewhere he acknowledges also

conveys the promissory element.41 Rather, Paul has strained out these other ele

ments in order to focus upon what the Mosaic covenant particularly added to the

stream of redemptive revelation: the imposition of personal obligation and a

curse-sanction for transgression ofits stipulations. This was an element not previ

ously instituted except in the pre-lapsarian covenantal stipulation and sanction:"[F]or in the day that you eat of it you shall die" (Gen 2:17).

Elsewhere, Paul indicates this development of the law covenant in the phrase

"from Adam until Moses" (Rom 5:14). Paul says "from Adam until Moses"

rather than, "from Adam until now"as could be expected, because the Mosaic

law instituted a curse on anything less than perfect, personal obedience to itsstipulations.42 Hence, though "death reigned" from Adam until the Mosaic

"ministry of death" and "ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:7, 9), death did

not operate on the basis of personal "transgression" of a sanctioned command

ment as it did for Adamwhich is the meaning of the phrase "even over those

3 9See the flow of the argument in Heb 7:20-22 for the connection between oath and covenant;

see Meredith G. Kline, ByOath Consigned(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 13-25. OT scholars

speak of the formula for the covenant bond ("I will be your God, and you will be my people") as

fundamental to biblical revelation; e.g., Otto Kaiser, "The Lawas Center of the Hebrew Bible," in"Sha*areiTahnon": Studiesin theBible, Qumran, andthe AncientNearEastPresentedto Shemaryahu T

Michael A. Fishbane and Emanuel ; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 93-103, who writes:

" [T]he covenantal formula is anything but an empty predicate. It is in fact the chief thread through

the labyrinth of the Bible." Older covenant theologians like Francis Turretin spoke ofthefirmula

fcederisin the same way; see Turretin, Institutes, 2:179-80 and 232.4 0 Exod 19:5; 24:8; et al. "There is no "}3 apart from the Law" (as cited in TDNT2.128,

which cites M. Ex., 12,6). Furthermore, there were covenants implied in each individual command

ment in the Law (ibid., p. 129).4 1 Implicit in Eph 2:12 and Rom 9:4 in particular. Kline notes: " [T]he Deuteronomic Covenant,

considered within its broader historical frameworkand even in terms of its own total contents, contains the element of divine promise. In fact, embedded among Deuteronomy's prophetic prospects

is a divine oath guaranteeing the promise (Deut 32:40ff ) Thus there is grace along with law the


14/23

62 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression ofAdam" (Rom 5:14 again).

Paul uses "transgression" in key places with a meaning distinguishable from

"sin" in that transgression is the violation of a published and sanctioned lawcode which imposes an obligation for obedience on the subjects: "All that the

Lord has spoken we will do" (Exod 19:8; 24:7; emphasis added).43 This is his

abbreviated point in v. 19 explaining that the law was "for the sake of transgres

sions" (). "Sin is not reckoned when there is no law" (Rom 5:13), but

once the law was instituted, sin was reckoned as a transgression (,

Rom 5:20) as under the Adamic covenant.

A law covenant in a post-lapsarian world can wreck nothing but havoc upon

those who are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3; see Rom 7:5-24)hence,

in such a situation no lawcan give life, otherwise righteousness would arise from

the law which requires personal fulfillment (Gal 3:21). The law's fundamental

purpose, then, must not be the basis for reception of the eternal inheritance.

In contrast to this personal obligation of the law stands the promise, which is

appropriated by faith in the substitutionary covenant mediator (or guarantor

Heb 7:22) in whom all the promises are fulfilled. It is for this reason that Paul

contrasts faith and lawas two mutuallyexclusive options for receiving the inher

itance (Gal 3:17-1 ).44 If God had given the law as the basis of inheritance, it

would annul the promise, for one either inherits based on personal perfor

mance and completion of the holy andrighteousdemands of the law(i.e., the

in Gal 3:10, 12 and 5:3) or in the substitution of the mediator's perfor

mance freely granted on the believer's behalf constituting an alien righteous

ness from God to which the old covenant revelation itself"the Law and the

Prophets"testifies (e.g., Rom 3:21-24). But thisrighteousnesscomes to us

freely "apart from the law" (Rom 3:21) because it is notrighteousnessthat we

have personally performed (Phil 3:9; Titus 3:5).

This interpretation for Paul's use of the law is confirmed in a clear passagelater in Galatians. Paul makes plain in Gal 5:2-5 that if a man does accept cir

cumcision with a view to guaranteeing the inheritance of the promise, this act

would sever him from Christ (v. 4) who would no longer profit () him at

all (v. 2). Why not? Because he has thereby abandoned his "hope of righteous

ness" that is based on faith ( ) (v. 5), and he is relying on a different

4 3

See esp. Gal 3:4-5; Rom 10:3-5.4 4

This is the fundamental distinction in covenant theology between the covenant ofworks and

the covenant ofgrace expressed clearlybyHerman Witsius: "I n the covenant ofworks there was no

mediator: in that ofgrace, there is the mediatorChristJesus In the covenant ofworks, the con-


15/23

GALATIANS 3:20 63

principiai basis for justification, namely, through law ( ) (v. 4). What

makes this basis impossible for the one attempting to be justified through the

law(; v. 4) is that he has now been put under personal obligationheis the debtor ()to fulfill all the law's demands for personal and per

fect obedience (v. 3).45 Paul expresses this clearly: "NowI testify again to every

one who intends to be circumcised that he is obligated to fulfill the law

completely" ( ). The aorist con

veys a "consummative" or "resultative" nuance in this context denoting that

the one who has the burden to do the law must completely fulfill all of its

requirements.46 Another way to say this in Greekwould be with the infinitive

("to fulfill"), which, interestingly, is found as a variant for inGal 5:3 in a few manuscripts. Paul's use of in Gal 5:3 is obviously influ

enced by the epexegetical in the LXX for Deut 27:26 which he had

quoted (with minor additions) in Gal 3:10, but he accepts the LXX interpreta

tion and carries it forward by stressing that it is the whole law ( )

which must be completed. This is crucial background to the extraordinarycap

stone of Paul's argument in Gal 3:20.

VII. Untilthe SeedComes: Galatians3:19

Ifthe foregoing analysis of the character of the Mosaic law covenant is cor

rect, it naturally raises the question in the reader's mind: "Why then the law?"

Paul anticipates this question (Gal 3:19a) and answers with a truncated, "It was

added for the sake of transgressions" (3:19b). We should not puzzle too long

over the precise significance of the preposition rendered "for the sake of"

(), for Paul's answer is hurried. It contains a certain amount of ambiguity,

which must characterize quick, general answers to complex questions.47 Like

wise, his other answers given in the next few verses about the law "locking usup" and "guarding us" like a child's slave-guardian () (Gal 3:22-25),

4 5 in Gal 5:4 is conative; see BDF 319 and many modern versions.

4 6 On the "consummative," "effective," or "resultative" idea for the aorist see Buist Fanning,

VerbalAspectin New TestamentGreek(Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 263-65 (and pp. 394-95 for infini

tives); see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar(Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1920), 1926.

Verbs that denote a process of some sort may have this consummative nuance. The verb has

a number of meanings, but here "to do the law" expressed with a present infinitive would be to

engage in actions (i.e., ) in fulfillment of the law's stipulations: "to practice the law" (soJohn 7:19); see $ (1 Chron 22:12; LXX). An equivalent

phrase would be "to practice righteousness" ( ; e.&, Matt 6:1 ; 1 John 3:7,10;


16/23


are somewhat elliptical and will need explication from other sources.48 But theone point of contact between v. 19 and those statements is that the particular

form of law given byMoses was looking forward to the time offulfillment in theSeed, until the faith in that Seed should be revealed (3:19c and 23).49 Onceagain Paul's Christocentric orientation dominates his analysis of redemptivehistory.

In the last phrase ofv. 19, Paul echoes other biblical and extra-biblical voiceswhich point to the angelic authentication of the Mosaic law, for it was "commanded by angels through the hand of a mediator."50 This mediation is frequently interpreted by commentators as Paul expressing his "deprecation" ofthe law "as not given directly by God."51 Furthermore, the mediation of

Moses, clearly expressed in the phrase "by the hand of a mediator" in v. 19 isinterpreted to the same effect at the law's expense.52 This interpretation, however, misses Paul's point and deflects us from the line of thought that leads naturally to v. 20. Let me explain byturning at last to our target verse.

VIII. GodIsOne: Galatians3:20

As a statement in isolation, Gal 3:20 poses no exceptional problems. A coupleof points of grammar call for brief notice, but beyond these the verse is easyenough to understand by itself.

First, the article with the phrase can be read in three ways. Itcould possibly be pronominal as used in narrative, particularlywith conjunctive: "Nowhe is not a mediator of one (party)." While this is grammatically possible, the sense and flow of the sentence and of the same construction in thefollowing clause do not support it. The second and third options are those normally discussed and decided between: the article is either anaphoric, referring

back to Moses as mediator in v. 19d ("Now, thismediator, Moses, is not of one").Or the article is generic, which is used with a noun employed as a specificexample illustrating a group or class of referents: "Now, a mediatoris not ofone."

53 My opinion is that the noun here is generic, though the result of this

4 8 For a thorough treatment of ancient material on , seeNorman H. Young, "Paida-

gogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT29(1987): 150-76.4 9 This is similar to other biblical statements about OT events and institutions which have an

eschatological orientation; e.g., Moses was appointed a servant in the household of God "as testi

monyto the things which would be revealed in the future" (Heb 3:5).5 0

Seemost notably Acts 7:38,53 and Heb 2:2. See Longenecker (Galatians, 139-40) for discussion

and extra-biblical references. The notion of the law covenant being "commanded" (Heb. tswah) is

frequent in the OT; e.g., "all these words [the covenant stipulations] which the LORD had commandedthem" (Exod 19:7; see v. 5).5 1

See Riesenfeld, "The Misinterpreted Mediator," 409; Burton, ICC, 189; Longenecker, Gala


17/23

GALATIANS 3:20 65

preference is not substantially different from choosing the article as anaphoric.In any interpretation of the article, the referent of "mediator" in v. 20 is still

Moses. Paul refers to a self-evident principle that a mediator is not employedwhen there is only one party in the transaction. Since God is one, there was nomediation of the promise to this Seed-to-come (v. 19), who was the foundational heir (v. 16 and discussion above). As we will see, this general principle isinvoked to show that Moseswas not mediating the promise when he mediatedthe law.

Secondly, there is an ellipsis of the predicate noun to which the genitive is connected in the predication: , "Now, a mediator isnot (mediator) of one (party)." This is perfecdy understandable since

would have been expressed twice as both subject and predicate; normal Greekstyle prefers ellipsis rather than this sort of redundancy. The same ellipsis with agenitive and a copulative sentence is found elsewhere.54

Paul's assertion of the unity of God, of course, originates in the shema ofDeut 6:4, which was the banner of the monotheistic Jew in a polytheistic

world.55 For Paul to invoke the shema in support of his theology was the mostnatural thing in the world for him. In this verse, as he does elsewhere, Paul bril-liandy employs the shema to ground Christianity on this central tenet of the OTfaith and revelation. Christianityis the consummate expression of the one way

of redemption by faith alone under all administrations of the covenant ofgrace.

56 And in this case in Gal 3:20, it is the tri-unity of God which undergirdsPaul's teaching on redemption.

And so, the genius ofPaul's point in v. 20 can now be apprehended and integrated into the flow of his argument. The law was indeed issued by divineauthority through angelic and Mosaic mediation. However, the promisedinheritance was not being mediated anew by the imposition of this law-covenant at Sinai. If it had been, this would constitute a breach and annulmentof the prior promissory arrangement granted to Abraham and to his seed, for

law and promise are incompatible principles of inheritance. Not even a humandisposition of inheritance can be altered in this way bysome outside party. AndMoses, as mediator, has to be viewed as a kind ofthird partyto the dispositionbetween the Father and the Seed-to-come.

plural nouns, and cites Nigel Turner (MHT 3.180-81) in support. Turner says just the opposite,

however: "The principle of the generic art. is to select a normal or representative individual" and

allows that a generic article maybe used with some plural nouns like or . The same

is true for classical grammar: "In the singular the generic article makes a single object the repre

sentative of the entire class; in the plural it denotes all the objects belonging to a class" (Smyth, GreekGrammar, 1123).

5 4 2 Cor 2:3: "My joy is (the joy) of all of you " We should also


18/23


And now Paul's clinching argument ofv. 20: The law ofMoses did not mediate the promised inheritance because the promise to Abraham ultimately origi

nates in a divine promissory agreement between the Father and the Son whowas to come (v. 19). No one can mediate between these two parties to the covenantal agreement, for they are both members of the one, triune God. Theyarenot, in fact, two separate parties, but represent the one God originating andeffecting our redemption.

This is Paul's clinching demonstration that the Mosaic law and the principleof personal law-keeping (pyoc ) was never intended to become a newfoundation for receiving the inheritance of eternal life: it could not be so, for to

be such would be to divide the Godhead through some sort of impossible

mediation. Moses was not mediating the promise to us, for he would have hadto mediate the promise to the Son also, but no such mediation is possible withinthe unity of the divine counsel. Thateternal, intratrinitarian arrangement cannot be nullified, abrogated, or even mediated by human agency because it wasmade between the members of the Triune God, and God is one. To interposethe Mosaic Law between the One who promised and the One who received thepromise would be tantamount to denying the unity ofGod. To invoke the shemain support of his hyper-Jewish opponents was a brilliant stroke.

That this is the correct interpretation is further corroborated by the direction

of thought in the verses that follow. IfMoses did not and could not mediate thepromise, the question naturallyarises whether we should view the issuing of thelaw byMosaic and angelic mediation as somehow interfering with the promisesofGod in redemptive history(v. 21). But Paul flady denies this false implication( ). The lawwas given for reasons other than in order to substitute forfaith in the inheritance of the promise. As mentioned above: it was added inredemptive history for transgressions (v. 19); for locking up all under sin (v. 22);and for placing the people of God under a guardianship proper for minors (i.e.,), even though to all appearances the minor heirs were no different

from slaves (4:1-3), until Christ should purchase "those who are under the law"from this bondage to the Mosaic law's condemnation (3:13; 4:5). One could evensaythat the Mosaic law was necessary as the covenantal administration of a

works principle for the Second Adam to fulfill, for it was therighteousnessof thelaw which Christ fulfilled (Matt 3:15; 5:17-29; Rom 3:21-22, 31; 5:12-21; 8:4;etc.) and it was the specific curse of the Mosaic law which he took upon himselfin the stead of the seed ofAbraham (3:13; see John 8:46;2Cor 5:21; 1 Pet3:18)as guarantor and mediator of the new covenant (esp. Heb 7:22; 8:6; 9:14-15).

IX. BlindAlleys

There follow on the heels of this interpretation of Gal 3:20 two potential


19/23

GALATIANS 3:20 67

plays precisely this mediatorial role in the development of Paul's argument in

Gal 3 when the promises given to Abraham were seen as fundamentally given

to Christ as covenant mediator (w. 16,19), so that it is only in union with Christby faith that these promises are conveyed to anyone, whether Jewor Gentile (w.28-29; see Rom 4:9-25). The incarnate Son of God is the one mediator

between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), butand this is the point of Gal 3:20the

pactum salutishas no such mediation. It is precisely this lack of and impossibilityof mediation of the divine disposition which Paul invokes in order to show the

eternal, unalterable foundation of the new covenant in the eternal, unalterable

counsel of God (see Heb 6:13-18).58 Although we know precious few details

about the secret counsel of God of which we are speaking here (see Deut

29:29), we can saythat it exists and that the historical new covenant "assumes"and "is founded upon" the pactum salutis.59

The second potential implication could lead to profound theological prob

lems. To say that Christ as the Seed-to-come receives the promises could make

it appear that the incarnate Son received his inheritance bygrace through faith

in the same way that the other heirs do. After all, the promises were spoken to

Abraham and to his seed, and the foundational Seed is Christ (v. 16) who holds

the promise () until he comes into the world (v. 19). The full answer to

this question could be the subject of another article; however, Gal 3:21-22 provide sufficient material to head off this error.60

First, we must recognize that Paul does not overtly speak on the issue of the

basis of Christ's reception of the promises in this passage. In v. 20, he merely

asserts that the intratrinitarian covenant was not mediated. And he does clearly

assert that the promises of God regarding the inheritance were given to Christ

as promises. What could possibly be at workhere is the Pauline notion of Christas our elder brother and therefore thefirstbornSon who shares his inheritance

with us as co-heirs of resurrection and eternal life (e.g., Rom 8:17 and Titus 3:6-

7). Christ must inherit in order for us to inherit. Yet the basis of the inheritancefor us is promissory; therefore, it cannot be based on ourlaw-keeping and per

sonal obedience, but rather on faith in Christ and a resulting vital union with

him through the Spirit (w. 9, 11, 14, 18; Rom 4:14; etc.).

But we can assert that the basis for reception of the promised inheritance for

Christ can be different from its basis for us because of what Paul says in w. 2 lb-

22. The reason why we cannot inherit on the basis of personal law-keeping is

5 8

See also the force of the argument in Heb 7:20-22 that because an oath undergirds the highpriesthood of Christ, this makes him guarantor of a newcovenant.5 9 The language here is that of Hermann Witsius: Prior conventio Dei cum mediatore est:posterior D


20/23


thatapart from Christwe are wholly sold under slaveryto sin and the curseof the law (w. 13, 22a; Rom 3:9-19; etc.). Indeed, the introduction of theMosaic

law into redemptive history served to turn the key on the prison doorsso that no other portal remains open for our inheriting the blessing except

through "the faith which was going to be revealed" (in the advent of Christ) (w.

22-23; see Rom 7:5-25).

In other words, what makes inheritance by law impossible for us is the fact

that "there is no onerighteous,no not even one!" (Rom 3:10). But this is nottrue ofJesus Christ, therighteousone, who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21 ; Heb 4:15;

1 John 2:2; etc.). So, for us, the hypothetical situation, "For if a law could be

issued which had the abilityto make alive (), then truly righteousness

would have been based on law" (v. 2 lb), must ever remain hypothetical after thefall of Adam.61 For the verb here refers to the regeneration of the

believer that connects him to Christ's resurrection and ultimately results in his

resurrection at the Parousia (Eph 1:18-21; 1 Cor 15:22-23; etc.). No lawhas thepower to make alive; it can only condemn.

But for the Second Adam, this situation did not apply, because he did not

need to "be made alive" in the same sense. Christ was not "born again,"because he was not dead in trespasses to begin with.62 This means that the

contra-factual condition in v. 2 lb thatrighteousnesscannot come by way of lawforusis factual for Christ. Indeed, the Son of God wasborn underthe lawat his

incarnation for precisely this purpose (Gal 4:4): to bring in arighteousnessfrom

God to be imputed to us so that God would be just and at the same time the

justifier of the guilty(e.g., Rom 5:12-21).

In the end, this is just the answer to this issue already presented in classical

covenant theology, which holds that thepactum salutiswas a covenant ofworks forthe Second Adam, because the Son came with the obligation to personally andperfectlyfulfill the "task" () specified in the intratrinitarian compact which

became the historical basis for his claim on the stipulated reward and inheritance(John 17:4-5).63 This provides the theological basis for the imputation of the

6 1 The variant readings for NA27's reading: fjvincluding the dropping out

of in D* and a few other MSSdo not affect the meaning The conditional particle (or ) is

not absolutely necessary for a contra-factual condition; see Smyth 2313-20 for examples in clas

sical Greek; Boyer, "Second Class Conditions in New Testament Greek," GTJ3 (1982): 82 n. 6 for

NT examples; see Michael Winger, "Unreal Conditions in the Letters of Paul" JBL 105 (1986):

110-12 (which addresses Gal 2:21 and 3:21 in particular).6 2 Christ Jesus was "made alive" in resurrection, but only after he had borne oursins in his body

on the tree; it was not for his own sin or through an inherited guilt as for us.6 3 Expressed admirablyby Louis Berkhof: "Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal


21/23

GALATIANS 3:20 69

active obedience of Christ to believers that is so essential to the Protestant doctrine of justification.

X. Summary andConclusionThe interpretation of Gal 3:20 offered here flows particularly out of an

analysis ofv. 15 running through v. 22.1 view v. 15 as Paul invoking an analogyfrom testamentary practices of the day, which prohibited any party who wasnot the testator from emending or annulling a last will and testament. Thiswould have been understood across the broad spectrum of ancient legal situations in antiquityas indeed it is so understood todaywithout any speciallegal training or involving a legal practice restricted to some particular region.

What makes understanding v. 15 correctly so important is that it clarifies thepurpose of Paul's analogy. It shows us that the law, represented by Moses itsmediator, is incompatible with the promissory Abrahamic covenant when putto the wrong use. In v. 17, Paul applies this analogy to this effect by saying thelaw could not annul the inheritance by changing the principiai basis of inheritance from a gracious grant "from faith" to a basis of personal law-keeping. Thenew covenant represents direct continuity with the Abrahamic covenant on thisscore, and Paul emphasizes this point by declaring us heirs alongside Abrahamrepeatedly in this chapter (w. 6-9, 14, and 29). In covenant theology, this con

tinuity and development is expressed when we confess that Christ representsthe substance of the one covenant of grace inaugurated immediately after thefall and yet administered in different ways in the course of redemptive history.64

However, Paul moves briefly but most profoundly behind the historical development of the covenant of grace into the eternal realm in w. 19-20. Whatstarted him in this direction was when he mentioned that the terminus ad quern ofthe Mosaic administration of lawwhich served in part as a "ministry of condemnation" for transgressions (v. 19; 2 Cor 3:9)was the arrival of the Seed to

whom the promises given to Abraham were ultimately oriented. The clearassumption here is that the Seed existed before he came, for the promises werespoken to him when Abraham heard them. This, incidentally, is why Paul has tocomment that the Son of God was "born of a woman" when he did finallycome in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), for the Son did not come in his divineglory, but in servile guise as a true man (Phil 2:6- 8). This was not a ^hywphany^but a genuine incarnation.

So then, once Paul has reflected on the Son's pre-incarnate existence in Gal3:19, it was quite natural for him to clinch his argument about the impossibilityof changing the basis of inheritance from grace, faith, and promise to that ofpersonal obligation and law-keepingby invoking the intratrinitarian life of God


22/23


was not an "eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets"65

and thereby representing an intractable principle of inheritance of God's prom

ises overthrowing faith in Christ. Rather, the promises of God to a fallen worldare rooted in his sovereign, intratrinitarian counsel, traditionally called thepactum salutis, which Moses did not and could not mediate, for God is one.


23/23

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Documents

Baugh - Covenant of Redemption