The Book of Galatians #12
Galatians 3:15-22
There are only two approached to God: one is through the promise of God; the other is through the keeping of the Law. The Judaizers in the region of Galatia opposed the teaching of salvation by grace through faith by substituting the keeping of the Law. Paul is defending the faith from a Scriptural viewpoint. He uses the testimony of Abraham to do so.
Then he answers an anticipated argument: Abraham may have been declared righteous through faith, but the Law came along with Moses and superseded that approach. In Galatians 3:15-22 Paul is responding to the argument by giving four reasons that support eh fact that the Promise of God is superior.
First of all, he mentions the confirmation. A covenant was established by God, and it guarantees the promise. God said to Abraham, “I will bless you”. He established the parameters and conditions of the covenant, and it can’t be annulled or changed once it is agreed to.
Secondly, it was centered on Jesus. Abraham was saved by grace through the blood of Jesus that was yet to be shed. Eventually, Christ came and gave His life. The promise of God is superior in that it was centered in Christ before and after the giving of the Law.
That catches us up to where we ended last week.
There's a third thing:
The promise of faith is superior to the law because of, not only its confirmation and its Christ-centeredness, but also
3. Its Chronology
Verse 17
This just takes the argument a step further
The Johnny-come-lately argument, that something that came along 430 years after God made a promise, cannot change the ratified, confirmed promise of God. Here you have the argument from a chronological point of view. He says that the promise of faith is superior because it came first.
There's an interesting footnote here. When you read this verse, he says here, "The law, which was four hundred and thirty years later." That's a problem, because the law came with Moses 645 years after Abraham.
This is one of those verses the critics like to point to come along and say, "See! There it is; another error in the Bible." Is there an error in the Bible? No. So what do we do? We keep working on it until we find out what's going on here. What do we find out?
Some interesting things. Remember we are talking about God’s promise to Abraham. The promise originated with Abraham, it was repeated to Isaac, and the last guy that he repeated it to was Jacob. Did you know that it was 215 years from Abraham's call to Jacob's journey into Egypt? Now the last time I checked 645 - 215 = 430.
Paul is simply measuring the time from the last statement of the promise to Jacob, to the arrival of the law. That was exactly 430 years. The Bible is not in error; the Bible is accurate.
And what he is saying is, "The law which came 430 years after the last statement about the promise cannot make the promise of no effect.
God has been saving man on the basis of faith since Adam. So all the way up to Jacob, men are saved by grace through faith, then all of a sudden, 430 years later, in swoops the law. It's only around for 1,500 years, and it's going to complete replace the entire system of faith that God has ordained from Adam, throughout history, to be resolved in Christ?
No. Salvation has always been by faith, and the law, which only arrived for a period of 1,500 years, isn't going to change that. So the superiority of the promise is seen by its confirmation, its Christ-centeredness, and its chronology.
Fourthly, and lastly, it's seen in
4. Its Completeness
Verse 18
What is he saying? "If there's an inheritance here from this promise, it can't be by law and also by promise." In other words, salvation can't be by faith and by works. They are contradictory things. Why can't salvation be by the law? It didn't come until 430 years after.
What happened to all those poor folks who lived before Moses? If salvation is by the law, what about all those people? That's why the Judaizers, and many other Jews throughout history, have tried to prove that everyone before the law kept the law, even though it hadn't been written yet.
What about all those people? He's simply saying this, "Look, if the inheritance was of the law, then it's not through the promise. You can't have both. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. God saved Abraham by faith; therefore it can't be by law. If it was, then there wouldn't be any promise. If you can get saved by law, promise doesn't mean anything. But God saved Abraham by promise! And it’s complete.
Since it's complete, it is impossible to bring the law into the situation. If you're going to do that, if you're going to make the inheritance by law, then you're going to have to just throw promise out. But you can't do that, because Abraham was justified by promise.
If you try to mix the two together, they don't mix any more than oil and water do. If you add law to grace, all you get is a mess. You will destroy faith and grace. So he's saying, in effect, "Look, you're either going to be justified by promise of faith or by works of the law, not both. And just remember, Abraham was justified by promise of faith. The law came way later."
So the Galatians have to choose. And, by the way, everything in the verse chooses for faith. Look at the word 'inheritance'. What is an inheritance? Can you earn it? What do you do to get an inheritance? Nothing. You can't buy it, you can't earn it, it's a gift. And then notice the last word of verse 18, promise. It’s root is actually “grace” and it’s in the perfect tense, which is something that was done, and done with continuing ramifications. It was done clear to perfection. It was done with continued results. What it's saying here is, "God gave it by grace, and it continues to be good even today." God, having given it, still gives it. It continues to be good.
The salvation promise was given, the inheritance was given to Abraham for good, forever, for all time, by grace from God. Paul says, "If you want to choose from those two ways, you might as well choose the one that God chose. He justified Abraham by faith."
Now if that is true, then it rasies a valid question.
verse 19
If the law doesn't change the promise of faith, if the law can't justify you, if the law doesn't add anything to the original covenant of faith, then what is the law for?
Paul answers it in verses 19-22 with the other side of the argument. On the one hand there is the superiority of the Promise. On the other is the inferiority of the demands of the law.
Paul goes on to say that the law is inferior to the promise in three ways.
First of all, it is inferior in
1. Its purpose
The law has a purpose, but it is a lesser purpose than salvation. Look at the first line of the answer in verse 19
"It was added because of transgressions."
The New English Bible says it this way: It was added "to make wrongdoing a legal offense." The law was given to make wrongdoing a legal offense. Was there sin before the law was given? Of course; there has always been sin.
But listen. "The law was not to show man that he was a sinner, he knew that. The law was to show man that he was not just a sinner, but he was willfully breaking the standards of Almighty God and that sin was rebellion against the holiness of God."
See the difference? Before the law, man knew he was a sinner by conscience. But what we needed to know was that such sinning was in absolute violation of the very law of Almighty God.
We need to see ourselves, not just as bad guys, but as those who were standing before the bar of a holy God as guilty for his sin and condemned in those sins. That's why the law was given - because of the transgression. It let man know that he was crossing over, transgressing. He was violating God's laws; he was disobedient to the standards.
Paul’s argument in Romans all revolves around this core, foundational thought. All have sinned, yes, but they have fallen short of God’s glory.
The law was not just to give men knowledge of sin. Men had that knowledge. The conscience does that. It was to give the knowledge that sin was a direct violation of God, a legal offense, in front of a holy judge.
The law has a single purpose in that it is designed to show you what a rotten sinner you were, living in violation of a holy God. And when you saw yourself in that situation, you were supposed to say, "I need help!"
Look at the rest of verse 19
The law's purpose was to point people to Christ until Christ finally came as the Deliverer.
The law is, then, inferior in its purpose. The law can't save you, the law just shows you how rotten you are and that you're living in judgment.
Here’s the second thing. The law is inferior to the promise because of
2. Its Mediators
Verse 19 again
Here we have two mediators, one heavenly and one human. The law was given from God to angels, and then, from the angels to Moses, and then from Moses to the people.
When God gave the law, He did not give it directly to the people, He gave it to angels to Moses to the people. God was the author, but He gave it through angels and Moses as mediators. That’s what that verse is all about. It is telling us how the law got from God to people.
But in the case of Abraham and the promise, God gave it to Abraham through nobody. God talked to Abraham directly. In fact, He did it several times, even calling him “friend”. It's a whole different thing. The promise came first-hand, while the law came third hand.
By the very way that God gave it, it was obvious that it wasn't His greatest joy. It wasn't His redeeming work, or He wouldn't have had everyone stand way off. He wouldn't have had it so far removed from Himself.
Contrast that with salvation. When God starts talking about salvation, God comes near.
You here it in verses like Proverbs 23:26. "My son, my daughter, give me your heart." There is something personal there. The gospel of salvation was so precious to the heart of God that He came and gave it to Abraham personally. He even visited Abraham's house. Abraham found out he had company, it turned out to be God and two holy angels! Man.
Now I don’t have anything against Moses. If he wanted to stop by for a visit, that would be great! But even Moses is nothing like God showing up!
And Paul is saying to the Galatians, “Don’t allow the Judaizers to exalt Moses over God.” Don’t allow the law, which was given later through a handful of mediators, to supplant the promise, which was God's blessed work of salvation, which He gave directly to Abraham.
Verse 20
One commentary I looked at said there are 430 different possible interpretations for this verse. I'm just going to give you 273 of them.
To be honest with you, I don't have any idea what this verse means. But I take some comfort in knowing that neither do 429 other people!
It is a tough verse. Let me give you my guess. The first part, I think I can understand. He’s still talking about the contrast between the law and the promise, and he’s speaking directly about the need for a mediator. That’s at the end of verse 19.
He follows that up by saying, “You don't need a mediator if you've only got one person.” There's not a 'middle' of one thing or person. You only need someone to mediate when you have at least two parties. 'Mediator' comes from the Greek word for midst, or middle.
So when he says, "A mediator does not mediate for one only", he is saying since the law had a mediator (the angels and Moses), that meant that it was a two-sided agreement.
In the law, God says, "I'll do this if you do this." That's exactly the position of those who get into a contract with a mediator. Each party is subscribed to certain things. Any legal agreement through a mediator demands that both sides keep the deal.
That's the position of those who put their trust in the law. If you want to put your trust in the law, God will keep His side of the bargain. You just keep the whole law and He'll bless you. It's a deal. The law was between two, and it was conditional. You're blessed if you obey.
So he says, that’s the way the law works; you need a mediator. But then look at the next phrase:
“But God is one."
What does that mean? I think he's saying that on the other hand the promise didn't need a mediator because Abraham didn't have anything to do with it. God just showed up and said, "Here it is!" He just gave salvation.
He didn't say, "If you do 74 spiritual push-ups, and this and that, then you can hang on to salvation." He said, "Here it is. I give it to you, take it, it's free, it's a gift, grab it and go."
And the point is that the law is inferior because it had a mediator. That meant it was a two-sided agreement. The covenant of promise is superior because it didn't need a mediator because it wasn't two-sided. God just said, "I'll bless. Take it or leave it; you can have it for nothing."
And I would suggest that it's better to depend on the unconditional, unchanging grace of God than it is to try and keep the law.
I don't want to get into a two-sided agreement with God where I have to do what I have to do in order for Him to keep His end of the bargain.
I'm glad that He saved me as a free gift of grace no matter what I do, because I fail. I don't always obey Him, or love Him like I ought to. I don't always obey Him in the sense of a daily walk. I have a terrible time keeping my end of the deal.
But you know what? He's faithful. And He has bound Himself to a promise of salvation by faith. Even if my faith grows thin, He can't change what He has confirmed in His own promise. So, the covenant of promise is superior because it is not mediated. It is not a bargain between two, it is just God.
Lastly, the law is inferior because of
4. Its Accomplishment
Verse 21
This is an interesting question that Paul throws into the mix. "OK, Paul. Are you saying that the law and the promise are in conflict?" That wouldn't be a good thing to agree to. That would mean that God was fighting Himself, since He started both of them.
Paul says, in answer to that question which he himself asks, "God forbid!" This is the strongest form of the Greek negative.
Of course not! The law and faith are not in opposition; both are from God, they just have different functions.
Look how he points it out.
Verse 21b
There isn't any conflict between law and faith because faith saves those to whom the law has revealed their sin. They just have different functions in the same process.
There would only be conflict if they were both seeking to accomplish the same purpose. If you could have gotten saved by law, and could have gotten saved by grace, then you've got a conflict because you'd have two ways to get saved.
But there's no such law. The law can't give life.
Therefore, it is inferior to the promise since there is no law that can save. And since there is no law that can save, there is no conflict.
Then he sums it all up in verse 22
You know why God gave the law? To reveal that all men are sinners against Him. Why did God want to reveal that?
So they could accept the promise by believing. He gave us the law to show us how bad we were to drive us to Jesus Christ, that we might simply believe and accept the promise by faith. The law came for that purpose. The law had one design: to lock us up, to put us in jail, to kill us.
Men are chained prisoners and every sin they commit tightens the chain until, at last, they are crushed in judgment. This is what the law was given to do: to tighten the screws on the sins of men, that in anguish, they might cry out for a deliverer.
And at that point, "The promise by faith of Jesus Christ is given to them that believe." What a tremendous thing. God just offers the gracious gift of salvation to those who see their sin.
Not until the law has arrested and imprisoned us do we long for the Lord Jesus Christ to set us free. Not until the law has condemned and killed us do we look to Him for new life. It's only when the law has driven us to despair, to despair of ourselves, that we embrace Jesus Christ.
So he says to the Galatians, "The promise of faith is still in order. It is superior. Don't let anyone add to it or change it."
It is still true, beloved, that if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you can know forgiveness and righteousness in Him. That's all God asks.
Let's pray.
