Galatians 3:15

Ἀδελφοί. Galatians 1:11 note. λάβωμεν (Galatians 3:14) has suggested a common relationship to Christ.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (Galatians 1:11) λέγω. Romans 3:5[99], which guides us to the right meaning here: I am applying human arguments as though I were speaking of the relation of man to man, although I am well aware that the reality deals with the relation of God to us. A less probable interpretation based on 1 Corinthians 9:8 is: I take an illustration from ordinary human life, in contrast to one taken from Scripture. So Chrysostom.

[99] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

ὅμως, “nevertheless,” i.e. although it seems indecorous to apply human arguments to God’s procedure—even a man’s διαθ. no one treats lightly. There is no sufficient reason for reading ὁμῶς “in like manner” here and 1 Corinthians 14:7 with Blass (Gram. § 77. 14).

ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην, “a man’s διαθ. when ratified,” 2 Corinthians 2:8[100]; Genesis 23:20 (of the field and the cave to Abraham). Purposely nothing is said about the manner of ratification. All is as general as possible.

[100] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

διαθήκην. It is extremely difficult to determine the meaning of διαθήκη here and in Galatians 3:17 and the image intended by St Paul.

(1) The Greek word that appears to us to be the most natural translation of “covenant” (i.e. a contract or agreement between two parties) is συνθήκη, which is common from Aeschylus downwards (see L. and S.). διαθήκη on the contrary seems never to mean a covenant in Classical Greek (see the criticism of Lightfoot by Ramsay, Gal. p. 362) or in the Greek of the Papyri and Inscriptions. Deissmann writes “I can affirm … that no one in the Levant of the first century A.D. could imagine that the word διαθήκη contained the meaning of ‘covenant’[101].” In these two vast collections of Greek it means a solemn enactment or Disposition of property etc. to take effect either in lifetime or after death.

[101] Ich kann auf Grund eines grossen Materials wohl sagen, dass kein Mensch in der Mittelmeerwelt des ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus auf den Gedanken kommen konnte, in dem Worte διαθήκη den Begriff Bund zu finden (Licht vom Osten, p. 243).

(2) Yet it is, as we may say, the only rendering of berith, “covenant,” in the LXX. For, if we take Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance as the basis, we find that berith is represented by διαθήκη 282 times, by συνθήκη only once, in 2 Kings 17:15 A, and by ἐντολαί once in 1 Kings 11:11. It is also transliterated three times. In Deuteronomy 9:15 the phrase “the two tables of the covenant” is rendered by αἱ δύο πλάκες τῶν μαρτυρίων in AF, but τ. μαρτ. is absent in B.

How are we to account for this use of διαθήκη by the LXX. in face of the evidence of the classics and the Inscriptions and Papyri? We notice that in Genesis 6:18, the first occurrence of berith, it is used of God’s promise to Noah, and obviously therefore διαθήκη is a more suitable translation than συνθήκη. If this did not actually set the tone for the use of διαθήκη rather than συνθήκη (even in cases where berith means a covenant between man and man) throughout the O.T. (and we cannot suppose this in view of the multitude of translators) yet it fell in with what must have been the current note in the Graeco-Jewish mind of the time. Hence when used of God διαθήκη would retain much of its proper meaning, a solemn Disposition; the additional notion of acceptance, and so agreement by the receiving party, being wholly subordinate. So especially Jeremiah 31:31, the new covenant of the Prophets. It may perhaps be added that it is also possible that the διά of the compounds διαθήκη and διατίθεμαι, though properly meaning thoroughness, may, by a popular etymology, have suggested to a Jew passing through the divided members of the animal connected with a covenant.

(3) The use of διαθήκη in the N.T.

(i) In no instance is it, or its verb διατίθεμαι, indisputably used of a mere contract between man and man. For this the verb συντίθεμαι is employed, Luke 22:5; John 9:22; Acts 23:20, but the substantive συνθήκη does not occur, (ii) The quotations from the O.T., or the allusions to it, in every case refer to a Divine διαθήκη. (a) With Abraham and the Fathers, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8; Romans 9:4 (plural); Ephesians 2:12 (plural), (b) In the time of Moses, Hebrews 8:9 (vide infra); Hebrews 9:4 bis, Hebrews 9:15 b (ἡ πρώτη διαθήκη), Hebrews 9:20 and apparently Revelation 11:19. (c) The new covenant of the Prophets: Romans 11:27, taken from Isaiah 59:20-21; Hebrews 8:8-10 (from Jeremiah 31:31 sqq.), Hebrews 10:16. To this perhaps may be added Hebrews 8:6 and Hebrews 9:15 a. (iii) The reference by our Lord at the Last Supper (Mark 14:24, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν || Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) is to a διαθήκη by God in the O.T. sense, i.e. a Disposition by God, though the mention of blood seems to contain the connotation of acceptance by God’s people. (iv) The language of the writer of Hebrews 9:16-17 looks indeed at first sight as though the author used διαθήκη in the sense of “will” or “testament,” i.e. a Disposition to take effect only at death; but probably even there the thought of “the death of the testator “is connected with the death of Christ rather as “covenant-victim” than as testator properly so called (see Westcott in loco and especially p. 302). See also Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 12:24; Hebrews 13:20.

(4) St Paul in the passages already cited and also in 2 Corinthians 3:6 (καιν. διαθ.) and 14 (τ. παλ. δ.), Ephesians 2:12, uses the word διαθήκη in the sense in which the translators of the LXX. used it with reference to God, and in which our Lord used it in the words recorded of Him, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that he used it in the same sense in our Epistle. But there is almost equally little doubt that the word “covenant” does not adequately express this sense. Some such word as “Disposition” is required if we are to bring out the supremacy and the grace connoted by διαθήκη. We may not translate “will” or “testament,” for these connote death, which διαθήκη does not necessarily do. It may, for example, include an adoption of a son during lifetime (see Ramsay, Gal. p. 351). Our “deed of gift” is perhaps the closest legal term representative of διαθήκη, cf. the quotation from Philo on p. 74. In Galatians 3:15 St Paul is thinking of a “Disposition” by man generally; in Galatians 3:17 he passes directly to the great “Disposition” made by God which governs all His dealings with Abraham and his descendants. In Galatians 4:24 he has in his mind the two “Dispositions” by God, one made on Mount Sinai, the other made through Christ.

(5) Observe further:
(a) The subject is quite general. There is no reference either to the Roman or to the Greek law of wills, if even a difference of custom existed at this time. See Appendix, Note C. In particular observe that there is no reference to adoption in these verses.

It may even be questioned whether ἡ κληρονομία (Galatians 3:18) is regarded as the result of the “Disposition”; for it is so very common a metaphor in the Old Testament.

(b) If in our verse the reference is quite general there is no occasion to ask how the question of death comes in. A “disposition” may or may not depend on the death of the testator. Thus in the reality of which the human “disposition” is a figure there is no room for objecting that God does not die, or for answering with Luther that the death of the Lord Jesus meets the difficulty. The question of death is simply not raised by St Paul, and the object of a commentary is to try and understand his thoughts, not to discuss what he never intended to suggest.

οὐδεὶς, i.e. no person other than the “disposer.” To understand it as meaning no person, no, not even the “disposer” himself, is to put an intolerable strain upon the passage. In our passage it excludes the νόμος of Galatians 3:17, personifying it.

ἀθετεῖ, “sets aside,” Galatians 2:21 note.

ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται[102], i.e. adds an additional clause, a codicil, or a later deed, an ἐπιδιαθήκη. Cf. Joseph. B.J. II. 2. 3 (§ 20) of Antipas ἀξιῶν τῆς ἐπιδιαθἠκης κυριωτέραυ εἶναι τὴν διαθήκην, and, for the contrary opinion of Archelaus and his advocate, 6 (§ 35). In Inscriptions found in Asia Minor διατάσσομαι is technically used of making testamentary dispositions (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 57). The statement is general, but as referring to God’s action it is implied that the Law is not an addition to the promise in the sense that it affects the latter.

[102] Is affixed it means that all the passages are mentioned where the word occurs in the Greek Bible.