Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Galatians 3:15

"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." — Galatians 3:15 (ASV)

“Brothers” introduces a change of tone on the part of the apostle, in contrast to the somewhat distant and formal beginning of ch. 3 (cf. 4:31; 6:1). It is as though he now invites the erring Galatians to reason along with him as he uses an analogy from everyday life. Paul is borrowing an illustration from human relationships (so also at Ro 3:5; 6:19; 7:1–3; 1 Corinthians 9:8).

Commentators have found difficulty in Paul’s use of the word “covenant” (GK 1347) here because the word can mean either “agreement” or “will.” But is it necessary to choose between the two meanings? Perhaps not. In English one has to choose between them simply because there are two separate words. But in the Greek language, it is possible to use both ideas. That this is the case here seems to be supported by: (1) Paul’s custom of playing on words elsewhere (e.g., Galatians 5:12), (2) the same double meaning in Heb 9:15–20, and (3) the particular nature of the “covenant” made by God with Abraham. Paul is alluding to the promise of a universal blessing both to Jew and to Gentile through Abraham’s “seed” (Genesis 12:2–3), which he conceives as the offer of justification to every human being through Christ. But if this is so, Paul certainly also has in mind God’s formal unilateral enactment of the covenant by the ceremony recorded in Ge 15.

In Abraham’s day an oath was sometimes confirmed by a ceremony in which animals were cut into two parts along the backbone and placed in two rows, the rows facing each other across a space marked off between them. The parties to the oath walked together into the space between the parts and spoke their promises there. This oath would be especially sacred because of the shed blood. But the ceremony in Ge 15 had this exception: In the case of God’s covenant with Abraham, God alone passed between the pieces of the slain animals, thereby signifying that he alone stood behind the promises (cf. also Heb 6:13-15). It did not depend on any condition to be fulfilled by Abraham.

The idea of a will is not far removed from this type of covenant, except in the matter of the death of the testator, which obviously cannot apply to God. Paul’s point is simply that the promise of justification through faith first made to Abraham is permanent. If a human will or agreement cannot be added to or annulled, how much less can the solemn promises made to Abraham and his seed be altered later by the living God!