Lenny vs. Polhill: The Fight over Galatians 3:20!

Galatians 3:15-22

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “and to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise has been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

My interpretation of this passage differed from that of John Polhill (or at least of v. 20). I do not know if both views are tenable when held in conjunction, but here it is.

Polhill and I both agree that the central idea in this text is that “God’s faith-covenant with Abraham is inviolable. The law, which was given 430 years later to Moses, can in no way abrogate God’s prior covenant with Abraham.”[1] The promise to Abraham, as Paul makes clear, is fulfilled in the “Seed,” that is, Christ.

Paul then speaks of the inferiority of the Law to the covenant of promise. The Law was given through a mediator by the administration of angels (cf. Hebrews 2:1-2).

Polhill then says, Paul “noted that a mediator implies more than one party. But God is one. God thus cannot have two covenants—a covenant of promise and a covenant of law. There can only be the one covenant, and that is the single covenant for all people which the one God made with Abraham.”[2] Polhill here stresses the prior part of the passage in understanding why Paul inserts “whereas God is only one.” His understanding would go like this: “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.” This is because “God is only one,” and so He cannot have two covenants. Thus the Law is not the ratified covenant, but it does still serve a twofold purpose, which Paul states in vv. 21-22.

My interpretation was based more upon the immediate flow of the text. The Seed has come, and so the covenant is being fulfilled. There was a mediator for the Law, thus it is inferior to the covenant. The Law was given for the twofold purpose outlined in 21-22, and it was given “until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” However, “a mediator is not for one party only.” There is no mediator necessary for the fulfillment of the covenant of promise to Abraham to the Seed. The Seed has come, no mediator is necessary, for there is now only one party involved—“God is only one.” My stress here is upon the Seed and God being one—thus no mediator is necessary—it seemed to me as though this was a quite explicit proclamation of Chris’s Deity by Paul.

After consulting with Dr. Schreiner and my good friend Jason, I am going to stand on my interpretation of this passage--that God Himself has fulfilled the covenant is the emphasis of this verse.

---

[1] John Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 148-9.

[2] Ibid. 149.