What a loss, dreadful and irreparable, to lose such a Christ, as we, under
grace, have known Him; such a righteousness; such a love; the Son of God
our portion, our life; the Son of God devoted for us, and to us! It is
indeed this which awakens the strong feelings of the apostle: "O foolish
Galatians," he continues, "who hath bewitched you?" Christ had been
portrayed as crucified before their eyes. Thus their folly appeared still
more surprising, in thinking of what they had received, of what in fact
they were enjoying under the gospel, and of their sufferings for the sake
of that gospel. Had they received the Spirit through works done on the
principle of law, or through a testimony received by faith? Having begun by
the power of the Spirit, would they carry the thing on to perfection by the
wretched flesh? They had suffered for the gospel, for the pure gospel,
unadulterated with Judaism and the law: was it then all in vain? Again, he
who ministered to them the Spirit, and worked miracles among them, was it
through works on the principle of law, or in connection with a testimony
received by faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for righteousness. It was the principle established by God in the case
of the father of the faithful. Therefore they who placed themselves by
grace on the principle of faith,-they were the "children of Abraham." And
the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through
faith, preached this gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In thee shall
all nations be blessed."
The epistle is necessarily elementary, for the Galatians were forsaking the
foundation, and the apostle insists on that. The great principles of the
epistle are, connected with the known presence of the Spirit, promise
according to grace in contrast with and before law, Christ the
accomplishment of the promise, the law coming in by the bye meanwhile. The
Gentiles were thus heirs in Christ, true and sole Heir of promise, and the
Jews acquiring the position of sons.
We have then the principle on which Abraham stood before God, and the
declaration that it was in him the Gentiles should be blessed. Thus they
who are on the principle of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer;
while the law pronounced an express curse on those who did not keep it in
every point. This use of Deuteronomy 27 has been considered elsewhere. I
would call to mind only that (the twelve tribes having been divided into
two companies of silt each, the one to announce the blessing and the other
the curse) the curses alone are recited, the blessings entirely omitted-a
striking circumstance, used by the apostle to shew the true character of
the law. At the same time the scripture plainly set forth that it was not
the works of the law that justified; for it said, "The just shall live on
the principle of faith." Now the law was not on the principle of faith, but
he who has done these things shall live by them. But was not this authority
of the law to be maintained, as being that of God? Assuredly. But Christ
had borne its curse (having redeemed and thus delivered those who-subject
before to the sentence of the law-had now believed in Him), in order that
the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentiles through Him, so that all
believers, both Jew and Gentile, should receive the Spirit who had been
promised.
Christ had exhausted for the believer-who before was subject to the law and
guilty of having broken it-all the curse that it pronounced on the guilty:
and the law which distinguished Israel had lost its power over the Jew who
believed in Jesus, through the very act that bore the most striking
testimony to its authority. The barrier therefore no longer existed, and
the former promise of blessing could flow freely (according to the terms in
which it was made to Abraham) upon the Gentiles through the channel of
Christ, who had put away the curse that the law brought upon the Jews; and
both Jew and Gentile, believing in Him, could receive the Holy Ghost, the
subject of God's promises, in the time of blessing.
Having thus touched on this point, the apostle now treats, not the effect
of the law upon the conscience, but the mutual relationship that existed
between the law and the promise. Now the promise had been given first, and
not only given, but it had been confirmed; and, had it been but a human
covenant solemnly confirmed, it could neither be added to nor annulled. But
God had engaged Himself to Abraham by promise 430 years before the law,
having deposited, so to say, the blessing of the Gentiles in his person
(Gen. 12). This promise was confirmed to his see [see note #4]
(Isaac: Gen. 22), and to only one; he does not say to the seeds, but "to
the Seed," and it is Christ who is this Seed. A Jew would not deny this
last point. Now the law, coming so long after, could not annul the promise
that was made before and solemnly confirmed by God, so as to render it of
no effect. For if the inheritance were on the principle of law, it was no
more on that of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. "Wherefore
then the law?" since the unchangeable promise was already given, and the
inheritance must come to the object of that promise, the law having no
power to change it in any way. It is because there is another question
between the soul and God, or, if you will, between God and man, namely,
that of righteousness. Grace, which chooses to bestow blessing, and which
promises it beforehand, is not the only source of blessing for us. The
question of righteousness must be settled with God, the question of sin and
of the guilt of man.
Now the promise which was unconditional and made to Christ, did not raise
the question of righteousness. It was necessary that it should be raised,
and in the first place by requiring righteousness from man, who was
responsible to produce it and to walk in it before God. Man ought to have
been righteous before God. But sin had already come in, and it was in
reality to make sin manifest that the law was brought in. Sin was indeed
present, the will of man was in rebellion against God; but the law drew out
the strength of that evil will, and it manifested its thorough contempt of
God by overleaping the barrier which the prohibition of God raised between
it and its desires.
The law was added that there might be transgressions, not (as we have seen
already, when meditating on the Romans, where this same subject is treated)
that there might be sin, but that there might be transgressions, through
which the consciences of men might be reached, and the sentence of death
and condemnation made to be sensibly felt in their light and careless
hearts. The law was therefore introduced between the promise and its
fulfilment, in order that the real moral condition of man should be made
manifest. Now the circumstances under which it was given rendered it very
obvious that the law was in no wise the means of the fulfilment of the
promise, but that on the contrary it placed man upon an altogether
different ground, which made him know himself, and at the same time made
him understand the impossibility of his standing before God on the ground
of his own responsibility. God had made an unconditional promise to the
seed of Abraham. He will infallibly perform it, for He is God. But in the
communication of the law there is nothing immediate and direct from God
simply. It is ordained by the hand of angels. It is not God who, in
speaking, engages Himself simply by His own word to the person in whose
favour the promise is to be fulfilled. The angels of glory, who had no part
in the promises (for it was angels who shone in the glory of Sinai; see
Psalm 68) invested, by the will of God, the proclamation of the law, with
the splendour of their dignity. But the God of the angels and of Israel
stood apart, hidden in His sanctuary of clouds and fire and thick darkness.
He was encompassed with glory; He made Himself terrible in His
magnificence; but He did not display Himself. He had given the promise in
person; a mediator brought the law. And the existence of a mediator
necessarily supposes two parties. But God was one; and it was the
foundation of the whole Jewish religion. There was therefore another on
whom the stedfastness of the covenant made at Sinai depended. And in fact
Moses went up and down, and carried the words of Jehovah to Israel, and the
answer of Israel who engaged themselves to perform that which Jehovah
imposed on them as a condition of the enjoyment of the effect of His
promise.
"If ye will indeed obey my voice," said Jehovah. "All that Jehovah hath
spoken we will do," replied Israel intermediately through Moses. What were
the consequences? The apostle, with touching tenderness, as it appears to
me, does not answer this question-does not deduce the necessary
consequences of his argument. His object was to shew the difference between
the promise and the law, without needlessly wounding the heart of a people
whom he loved. On the contrary, he endeavours at once to prevent any
offence that might arise from what he had said; further developing at the
same time his thesis. Was the law against the promises of God? By no means.
If a law had been given that was to impart life, then righteousness (for
that is our subject in this passage) should have been by the law. Man,
possessing divine life, would have been righteous in the righteousness that
he had accomplished. The law promised the blessing of God on the terms of
man's obedience: if it could have given life at the same time, this
obedience would have taken place, righteousness would have been
accomplished on the ground of law; they to whom the promise had been made
would have enjoyed its fulfilment by virtue of their own righteousness. But
it was the contrary which happened, for after all man, whether Jew or
Gentile, is a sinner by nature; without law, he is the slave of his
unbridled passions; under law, he shews their strength by breaking the law.
The scripture has shut up all under sin, in order that this promise, by
faith in Jesus Christ, should be accomplished in favour of those who
believe.
Now before faith came (that is, christian faith, as the principle of
relationship with God, before the existence of the positive objects of
faith in the Person, the work, and the glory of Christ as man, had become
the means of establishing the faith of the gospel), the Jews were kept
under the law, shut up with a view to the enjoyment of this privilege which
was to come. Thus the law had been to the Jews as a child's conductor up to
Christ, in order that they might be justified on the principle of faith.
Meanwhile they were not without restraint; they were kept apart from the
nations, not less guilty than they, but kept separate for a justification,
the necessity of which was made more evident by the law which they did not
fulfil, but which demanded righteousness from man; thus shewing that God
required this righteousness. But when once faith had come, those until then
subject to the law were no longer under the tutelage of this law, which
only bound them until faith was come. For this faith, placing man
immediately in the presence of God, and making the believer a son of the
Father of glory, left no more place for the guidance of the tutor employed
during the nonage of one who was now set free and in direct relationship
with the Father.
The believer then is a son in immediate connection with his Father, with
God (God Himself being manifested). He is a son, because all who have been
baptised to have part in the privileges that are in Christ have put on
Christ. They are not before God as Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, male or
female; they are before God according to their position in Christ, all one
thing in Him, Christ being for all the common and only measure of their
relationship with God. But this Christ was, as we have seen, the one Seed
of Abraham: and if the Gentiles were in Christ, they entered consequently
into this privileged position; they were, in Christ, the seed of Abraham,
and heirs according to the promise made to that seed.
