Galatians Chapter 3 verse 15 Holy Bible

ASV 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.
read chapter 3 in ASV

BBE Galatians 3:15

Brothers, as men would say, even a man's agreement, when it has been made certain, may not be put on one side, or have additions made to it.
read chapter 3 in BBE

DARBY Galatians 3:15

Brethren, (I speak according to man,) even man's confirmed covenant no one sets aside, or adds other dispositions to.
read chapter 3 in DARBY

KJV Galatians 3:15

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
read chapter 3 in KJV

WBT Galatians 3:15


read chapter 3 in WBT

WEB Galatians 3:15

Brothers, I speak like men. Though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been confirmed, no one makes it void, or adds to it.
read chapter 3 in WEB

YLT Galatians 3:15

Brethren, as a man I say `it', even of man a confirmed covenant no one doth make void or doth add to,
read chapter 3 in YLT

Galatians 3 : 15 Bible Verse Songs

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 15. - Brethren, I speak after the manner of men (ἀδελφοί κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω). "Brethren." The tone of indignant reproach with which the chapter opened has gradually subsided in the course of the apostle's argument; so that here he appeals to the Galatian Churchmen as "brethren; ' as if to bespeak their candid attention to the consideration he is about to allege. "I speak after the manner of men." I say it as stating a principle commonly recognized in human life, in respect to contracts between man and man (see note on the phrase, Galatians 1:11). In a similar manner, in Hebrews 6:16, 17 the writer refers to human methods of ratifying solemn engagements, in order to illustrate a course of proceeding on another occasion condescendingly adopted by God. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be (when it hath been) confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto (ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ η} ἐπιδιατάσσεται). The Authorized Version has thus happily rendered the ὅμως, which is here transposed cut of its logical position, as it is also in 1 Corinthians 14:7, and as ἔτι is in Romans 5:6. The apostle's meaning is that, if even men are constrained by their sense of justice to abide by this rule, much more may the All-righteous One be expected to do so. This a fortiori suggestion (for St. Paul only hints this consideration by introducing the word ὅμως without explicitly developing it) is similar to the afortiori argument more explicitly stated by our Lord with reference to God's justice, in Luke 18:6, 7; and to his fatherliness, in Luke 11:13. "Covenant." The word διαθήκη, properly "disposition," which, in classical Greek, generally means "will," "testament," is used in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew berith, covenant, in which sense it occurs once in Aristophanes, 'Ayes,' 439; and it appears to denote "covenant" in all the thirty-three places in which it is found in the New Testament; for even Hebrews 9:17 can hardly be allowed to be an exception. Bishop Lightfoot observes that the Septuagint translators and the New Testament writers probably preferred διαθήκη to συνθήκη, the ordinary Greek word for "covenant," when speaking of a Divine dispensation, because, like "promise," it better expresses the free grace of God. Perhaps the terms appeared to them more suitable also in this application, because one of the parties to the engagement was no other than the supreme sovereign Disposer of all things. "Confirmed;" ratified; as it were, signed, sealed, and delivered. "No one;" meaning neither of the two covenanting parties. "Addeth thereto;" addeth any fresh condition, such as would clog the action of the previous engagement. The apostle adds this with reference to the supposition that the Law of Moses might have qualified the Abrahamic covenant by limiting its benefits to persons ceremonially clean.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(15-18) To take an illustration from purely human relations. A covenant once ratified is binding. It cannot be treated as if it did not exist, neither can fresh clauses be added to it. Now the covenant and promise made to Abraham (by the terms in which it was made) could point to no one but the Messiah. That covenant remained unaffected by the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years subsequent to it in point of date. Law and promise are two totally different and mutually exclusive things. But the covenant with Abraham was given by promise. The Law, therefore, had nothing to do with it.(15) I speak after the manner of men.--The figure that I am going to use is one taken from the ordinary civil relations between man and man, and therefore, it is left to be inferred, supplies an a fortiori argument in things relating to God, for men may change and break the most solemn engagements; God is absolutely faithful and unchangeable. The phrase translated "I speak after the manner of men" is found in the same, or a very similar form, in Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; 1Corinthians 9:8, where see the Notes.Though it be but a man's covenant.--This is well rendered in the Authorised version. A covenant, even though it is only between two men--though it is regulated by the provisions only of human law--does not admit of alteration or addition after it has once been signed and sealed; much more a covenant which depends on God.Covenant.--The word thus translated is that which gave its name to the "Old and New Testaments," where a more correct rendering would be the "Old and New Covenants." The word has both senses. It meant originally a "disposition" or "settlement," and hence came, on the one hand, to be confined to a "testamentary disposition," while, on the other hand, it was taken to mean a settlement arrived at by agreement between two parties. The first sense is that most commonly found in classical writers; the second is used almost entirely in the LXX. and New Testament. The one exception is in Hebrews 9:15-17, where the idea of "covenant" glides into that of "testament," the argument rather turning upon the double meaning of the word. . . .