Galatians 3:17

The fulfilment of the promise is thus to be seen in the Messianic dispensation now begun. The Law, which was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, had no power to cancel it.

This verse contains the direct inference from the argument stated in Galatians 3:15. When a document has been sealed, no subsequent addition can affect it. The Law was subsequent to the promise; therefore the Law cannot affect it.

And this I say. — Now, what I mean to say is this; the inference that I intend to draw is this.

Confirmed before of God — i.e., confirmed by God before the giving of the Law.

In Christ. — These words are omitted in the group of oldest MSS., and should certainly be struck out. If retained, the translation should be: unto Christ — i.e., “with a view to Christ,” to find its fulfilment in Christ.

Four hundred and thirty years after. — The giving of the Law from Mount Sinai is thus placed four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham. This would include the two periods of the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan and the sojourn in Egypt. According to another system of chronology, the sojourn in Egypt alone occupied four hundred and thirty — or, in round numbers, four hundred — years. Thus, in Genesis 15:13, Abraham is warned that his seed is to be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and to be afflicted “four hundred years.” In Exodus 12:40 it is expressly stated that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” In Acts 7:6 the prophecy of Genesis 15:13 is quoted: the people were to be “entreated evil four hundred years.” It is noticeable, however, that in Exodus 12:40, which is the least ambiguous of the three passages, the L.XX. and Samaritan Pentateuch add, “and in the land of Canaan,” so as to make the four hundred and thirty years cover the whole of the two periods, in agreement with the present passage. It has been thought that an examination of the genealogy of Levi favours the same reckoning. It would seem, however, that there were two systems of chronology really current. Josephus adopts both in different parts of his writings (comp. Ant. ii. 15, § 2, with Ant. ii. 9, § 1; Wars, v. 9, § 4), and both are represented in other writers of the period, or not very much later. It is possible that the shorter reckoning may have arisen from difficulties observed in the longer, though it may be questioned whether it does not raise greater difficulties itself.