From the early Church Fathers to now.
7 Patristic · 1 Orthodox · 1 Catholic
“Brethren (I speak after the manner of man,) yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it.”
“"But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men.”
“For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament.”
“"To speak after the manner of men" means to use human examples. Having founded his argument on the Scriptures, on the miracles wrought among themselves, on the sufferings of Christ, and on the Patriarch, he proceeds to common usages; and this he does invariably, in order to sweeten his discourse, and render it more acceptable and intelligible to the duller sort. Thus he argues with the Corinthians, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof?" and again with the Hebrews, "For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?" One may find him dwelling with pleasure on such arguments. In the Old Testament God does the same thing in many instances, as, "Can a woman forget her sucking child?" and again, "Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" and in Hosea, He represents a husband set at nought by his wife. This use of human examples frequently occurs in types also, as when the prophet takes the girdle, and goes down to the potter's house. The meaning of the present example is, that Faith is more ancient than the Law, which is later and only temporary, and delivered in order to pave the way for Faith. Hence he says, "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;" above he had called them "foolish," now he calls them "brethren," at once chiding and encouraging them. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed." If a man, says he, makes a covenant, does any one dare to come afterwards and overturn it, or subjoin aught to it? for this is the meaning of "or addeth thereto." Much less then when God makes a covenant; and with whom did God make a covenant?”
“The apostle, who was "made all things to all men" … is also made a fool for the Galatians, whom he a little while before called fools. For he does not employ the arguments that he used with the Romans but simpler ones and such as the stupid could understand.… [He means,] "What I am about to say I say not according to God. I do not speak with regard to the deepest wisdom and those who can eat solid food but with regard to those who feed on milk because of the tenderness of their stomachs."”
“(V. 15 seqq.) Brothers, I speak in human terms: yet no one rejects or adds to a man's covenant, which has been confirmed. The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'and to seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'and to your seed,' who is Christ. Now I say this: the covenant, which was confirmed by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on a promise. But God gave to Abraham a promise. The Apostle, who became all things to all people in order to gain everyone, is a debtor to Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and the foolish, even to the Galatians whom he had just called foolish. For he did not use the same arguments with them as he did with the Romans, but simpler ones; things that even fools could understand and almost from the street corner. And so that it would not seem that he did it out of ignorance and not skill, he appeases the wise reader beforehand, and he tempers what he is going to say with a preface: Brothers, I speak as a human being. For what I am about to say, I do not speak according to God: I do not speak according to hidden wisdom, and those who can eat solid food, but according to those who are nourished by the tender milk of the stomach, and are unable to bear great things. (1 Corinthians 5). Therefore, to the Corinthians, among whom fornication was heard, and such fornication that even among the Gentiles, he says: I speak, and not the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:12). And to the same in the second [letter]: What I am saying, I do not speak according to the Lord, but as if in foolishness (II Cor. XI, 17). Some think that when he is about to discuss examples from the testament of a man and the death of the testator and other things of human similarity, he said: Brothers, I say according to man: although it seems to me, and for this reason indeed that they think, but especially because of what follows being stated (or promised), namely: He does not say 'and to seeds' as if in many, but as if in one, and to your seed, which is Christ. While traversing all the scriptures in meaning and memory, I have never found the seed of writing in the plural number, but whether in a positive or negative sense, it is always in the singular number. Furthermore, the following is inferred: But I say that this testament is confirmed by God, if anyone diligently compares the Hebrew volumes and other editions with the translation of the Septuagint interpreters, they will find where the testament is written, not to sound like testament, but a covenant, which is called 'Berith' in the Hebrew language. Therefore, it is clear that the Apostle did what he promised, and he did not use hidden meanings to the Galatians, but rather everyday and lowly things that could displease the prudent (I speak in human terms unless I add this). To calculate the years from the time when the Lord spoke to Abraham, saying, 'And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed' (Genesis 22:18), until the lawgiver Moses: whether they are four hundred and thirty, or how the Lord promises to Abraham in Genesis that his descendants shall come out of the land of bondage after four hundred years. For it is not a small matter, and sought after by many, I do not know if it was invented by someone else. Also, that which is read in the same book about Thamar and her two little ones (Genesis 38), that is, that the first one called Zara extended his hand, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on it, and then, as he pulled his hand back inside, the hand of the one named Phares was extended in its place. It is fitting that this demonstrates how Israel, in the work of the Law, extended his hand and contracted it, polluted by the blood of the prophets and of the Savior himself. But afterwards, the people of the Gentiles burst forth, because of whom it is often said to have been destroyed, and the middle wall that had been between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down, so that there would be one flock and one shepherd, and there would be glory, and honor, and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. However, the simple meaning that is hidden in this passage has this force, that the Apostle teaches that the promises that were made to Abraham cannot be destroyed by the Law, which was given afterwards, and that the later things cannot take priority over the earlier ones, since the promises were given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before, so that all nations would be blessed in him. But the observation is, that whoever had done it, would live in it, after four hundred and thirty years Moses gave it on Mount Sinai. On the contrary, this could be said: Why then was it necessary to give the Law after so much time of promise, when even with the Law given, the suspicion of a broken promise could arise, and the Law given would not be profitable while the promise remained? The Apostle, foreseeing this question, poses and explains it to himself in the following, saying:”
“The value that a testator's death has for confirming his testament is final, since he cannot then change his mind. This is the value that the immutability of God's promise has in confirming the inheritance of Abraham, whose faith was reckoned for righteousness.”
“He called them foolish above, but now he calls them brothers—there restraining, and here consoling. I am going to present you, he says, a human example. Paul wants to show that faith is a covenant more ancient than the law, and that it would be unjust to prefer the law over it. He brought an example to illustrate this. If, he says, a man made a testament, would anyone, coming afterward, dare to pervert it or alter it, that is, add anything to it? All the more must this be understood in relation to God.”
“Having proved by authority that the Law does not justify and is not necessary for justification, which is through faith, the Apostle then proves the same point with human reasons. Concerning this he does four things: First, he mentions a human custom; Secondly, he touches on a divine promise (v. 16); Thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v. 17); Fourthly, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises (v. 18). He says therefore: It is clear that up to now I have been speaking according to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which came not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit, as is said in 2 Peter (1:21). But now "I speak after the manner of man" and after the manners which human reason and human custom follow. Here, indeed, we have an argument to show that in discussions bearing on faith, we may use any truth of any science: "If thou seest in the number of the captives a beautiful woman and lovest her and wilt have her to wife, thou shalt bring her into thy house," i.e., if you are pleased with worldly wisdom and science, bring it within your boundaries, "and she shall shave her hair, and pare her nails," i.e., you shall cut away all erroneous opinions (Deut 21:11). This is why in many places in his epistles the Apostle uses the authority of the Gentiles; for example: "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor 15:33), and "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies" (Tit. 1:12). Or: although such reasons be fruitless and weak, because, as is said in Psalm 93 (v. 11): "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain," yet a man's "testament, if it be confirmed, no one despiseth nor addeth to" it, because nothing human has as much power to bind as a man's last will. But someone would be scorning it if he were to say that a man's will, confirmed by his death and by witnesses, had no validity. Therefore, if no one scorns a testament of this kind by saying that it should not be heeded or by modifying it, much less may anyone scorn the testament of God or modify it and weaken it by adding or removing anything: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (Rev 22:18); "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it" (Deut 4:2).”
“Since from the signs given by them, and from the revealing of the Holy Spirit, and from the cross of Christ, and from those things by which Abraham was saved, faith was shown to save, and not the law; now he seeks to persuade them by a human example. For the phrase "according to men" stands for "according to a human argument and example." And he rightly calls them brothers, having called them foolish. For it is necessary sometimes to rebuke sharply, and sometimes to soften. "a human-confirmed covenant." See what he wishes to prove by the example of the covenant. "I will bless," says God to Abraham, "and in his seed shall all the nations be blessed." (Gen. 22:18) Now the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, is Christ. The law was given four hundred and thirty years later. If then, he says, the law committed the blessings and righteousness, the promise and the covenant of God to Abraham become void. But a man's covenant no one annuls; and the covenant of God is annulled, and it lasted a long time, namely four hundred and thirty years. For if that one promised to bless through Christ, but the law instead of Christ blesses, then the covenant of God to Abraham is annulled. — [PHOTIUS] "Which he says has been confirmed." For it was authorized by an oath. And he says precisely, "has been confirmed." For the nullified thing is also transferred, just as the law itself, into the Gospel. It is ordered additionally, that is, it adds on. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —”
The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.