τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ ⸀θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ ⸂τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη⸃ γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ, εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.

touto de lego* diatheken prokekuromenen upo tou rtheou o meta [?]tetrakosia kai triakonta ete[?] gegonos nomos ouk akuroi, eis to katargesai ten epaggelian.

hoc autem dico testamentum confirmatum a Deo quae post quadringentos et triginta annos facta est lex non irritam facit ad evacuandam promissionem

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot cancel, that it should make the promise of none effect.

and this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed earlier by God in Christ cannot be annulled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, so as to make the promise of no effect.

Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

But I say this: The Covenant which was confirmed from the first by God in The Messiah, The Written Law which was 430 years afterward, cannot cast off and cancel The Promise.

Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.

Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

Now this I say; A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

This is what I mean: The laws [given to Moses] 430 years after God had already put his promise [to Abraham] into effect didn't cancel the promise [to Abraham].

And I say this: The law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God and cancel the promise.

This is what I mean: The Law that came 430 years later did not cancel the covenant that God ratified previously. The promise was never nullified.

What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise.

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.

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise.

And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect.

I mean that the Covenant which God had already formally made is not abrogated by the Law which was given four hundred and thirty years later--so as to annul the promise.

Now I say this. A covenant confirmed beforehand by God in Christ, the law, which came four hundred thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.

What I mean is this: God made an agreement with Abraham. He promised to bless him. Then, 430 years later, God gave his Law to Moses for the Jewish people. But that Law could not take away the authority of God's agreement with Abraham. It could not stop what God had already promised.

and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise,

This is what I am saying: The Law which came 430 years later could not change the promise. The promise had already been made by God. The Law could not put that promise aside.

And this I say, that the covenant that was previously confirmed by God in Christ, cannot be annulled by the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after; so that it should make the promise of no effect.

What this all means is that the law given to Israel comes along some 430 years after the promise made to Abraham; so it does not invalidate the covenant God previously agreed to or in any way do away with His promise.

Here’s what I am trying to say: God’s promise to save through faith—and God wrote this promise down and signed it—could not be canceled or changed four hundred and thirty years later when God gave the Ten Commandments.

This is what I am saying: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, cannot invalidate a covenant that had been previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

And what I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to abolish the promise.

And this I say that regarding the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot cancel it, that it should make the promise of no effect.

My point is this: The law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously established by God and thus cancel the promise.

This is my argument: The Law, which began 430 years after the covenant [concerning the coming Messiah], does not and cannot annul the covenant previously established (ratified) by God, so as to abolish the promise and make it void.

This is what I mean: God had an agreement with Abraham and promised to keep it. The law, which came four hundred thirty years later, cannot change that agreement and so destroy God’s promise to Abraham.

Friends, let me give you an example from everyday affairs of the free life I am talking about. Once a person’s will has been signed, no one else can annul it or add to it. Now, the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. You will observe that Scripture, in the careful language of a legal document, does not say “to descendants,” referring to everybody in general, but “to your descendant” (the noun, note, is singular), referring to Christ. This is the way I interpret this: A will, earlier signed by God, is not annulled by an addendum attached 430 years later, thereby negating the promise of the will. No, this addendum, with its instructions and regulations, has nothing to do with the promised inheritance in the will. What is the point, then, of the law, the attached addendum? It was a thoughtful addition to the original covenant promises made to Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came, inheriting the promises and distributing them to us. Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God. It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses. But if there is a middleman as there was at Sinai, then the people are not dealing directly with God, are they? But the original promise is the direct blessing of God, received by faith.

What I am saying is this: The law, which came into being 430 years after the covenant established earlier by God in Christ, does not annul that covenant, with the result that it invalidates the promise.

What I am saying is this: · the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously established by · God, so as to make the promise void.

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

This I say: the law, which began afterwards (over 430 years), does not nullify the testament that was confirmed before by God in Christ, so as to make the promise of no effect.

What I mean is that God made a covenant with Abraham and promised to keep it. The Law, which was given four hundred and thirty years later, cannot break that covenant and cancel God's promise.

But I say, this testament is confirmed of God; the law that was made after four hundred and thirty years, maketh not the testament vain to void away the promise.

This is what I mean. God made this covenanted will; the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, can’t undermine it and make the promise null and void.

What I am saying is that the Law cannot change or cancel God's promise made 430 years before the Law was given.

This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Now a promise was made to Abraham and to his seed. (Note in passing that the scripture says not “and to seeds” but uses the singular ‘and to your seed’, meaning Christ.) I say then that the Law, which came into existence four hundred and thirty years later, cannot render null and void the original “contract” which God had made, and thus rob the promise of its value. For if the receiving of the promised blessing were now made to depend on the Law, that would amount to a cancellation of the original “contract” which God made with Abraham as a promise.

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

I’m saying this: the Law, which came four hundred thirty years later, doesn’t invalidate the agreement that was previously validated by God so that it cancels the promise.

This is what I mean: the Law, which came into existence four hundred and thirty years later [after the covenant concerning the coming Messiah], does not and cannot invalidate the covenant previously established by God, so as to abolish the promise.

This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterwards, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

This is what I mean: The law, which came four hundred thirty years later, cannot ·change [cancel; nullify] that ·agreement [covenant] previously made by God and so ·destroy [nullify; render invalid] God’s promise to Abraham.

What I am saying is this: Torah, which came 430 years later, does not cancel the covenant previously confirmed by God, so as to make the promise ineffective.

This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Here is what I mean. The law came 430 years after the promise. But the law does not get rid of God’s covenant and promise. The covenant had already been made by God. So the law does not do away with the promise.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Here is what I am saying: the legal part of the Torah, which came into being 430 years later, does not nullify an oath sworn by God, so as to abolish the promise.

Here is what I mean. The law was given [to Moses] four hundred and thirty years after God gave that promise to Abraham. But it cannot break the strong promise which God made. And the law cannot change God's promise.

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

And this I say: a brit (covenant), which was previously confirmed by Hashem, cannot be annulled so as to abolish the havtachah (promise) by the Mattan Torah‖which was given arba me’ot usheloshim shanah [four hundred and thirty years later SHEMOT 12:40]).

This is what I mean: The laws given to Moses 430 years after God had already put his promise to Abraham into effect didn’t cancel the promise to Abraham.

And this I say, that the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul the covenant that was ratified by God in Christ, so as to nullify the promise.

This is what I mean: The agreement that God gave to Abraham was made official long before the law came. The law came 430 years later. So the law could not take away the agreement and change God’s promise.

This is what I mean: God had an agreement with Abraham and promised to keep it. The law, which came 430 years later, cannot change God’s promise to Abraham.

Now I am saying this: the law, that came after four hundred and thirty years, does not revoke a covenant previously ratified by God, in order to nullify the promise.

What I mean is this: the law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

And this I say: the Law, having come-about after four-hundred and thirty years, does not un-ratify the covenant having been previously-ratified by God, so as to do-away-with the promise.