BIG IDEA:
THE BLESSING OF JUSTIFICATION COULD ONLY COME VIA GOD’S UNCHANGING PROMISES RATHER THAN BY THE LAW
Dealing here with the Abrahamic Covenant — background on the provisions of this covenant
I. (:15-18) GOD’S UNCHANGING PROMISES CANNOT BE SUPERCEDED BY THE LAW
A. (:15) God’s Covenant Promises Can Never Be Changed or Annulled
Argument from the lesser (man’s covenants) to the greater (God’s covenants).
“Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.”
Significance of Ratification
– by man
– by God
cf. business contracts — any change must be initalled by both parties
B. (:16) God’s Promises Find Their Ultimate Fulfillment in Christ
“Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is Christ.”
C. (:17) God’s Promises Came Way Before the Law and were not Set Aside by the Law
1. God’s Promises Came Way Before the Law
“What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later”
Wiersbe: “Paul is counting from the time Jacob went into Egypt, when God appeared to him and reaffirmed the covenant (Gen. 46:1-4). The 430 years is the time from God’s confirmation of His promise to Jacob until the giving of the law at Sinai.”
2. God’s Promises were not Set Aside by the Law
“does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.”
D. (:18) The Blessing of the Promised Inheritance Came Via God’s Promises — not God’s Law
“For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.”
TRANSITION: “Why the Law then?”
II. (:19-22) THE PURPOSE OF GOD’S LAW WAS NEVER TO PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION
A. (:19-20) God’s Law was Necessary But Clearly Inferior to God’s Promises
1. (:19a) The Law was Necessary Because of Sin
“It was added because of transgressions”
Again, the emphasis on the law having been “added” after the Promises.
2. (:19b-20) The Law was Clearly Inferior to God’s Promises —
a. Proven by the nature of mediation
“having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator”
mediated through angels and Moses rather than directly given by God as the promises were to Abraham
b. Proven by the intended duration — Only Temporary
“until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made”
c. Proven by the need for a mediator
“Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.”
MacArthur: “Paul seems to be pointing out that a mediator (literally one who stands between two parties) is needed only when more than one party is involved. God gave the covenant directly to Abraham without a mediator because He was the only one involved in making the covenant. Abraham was a witness to the covenant and was a beneficiary, but he was not a party to it. Abraham had no part in establishing or keeping the covenant. That responsibility was God’s alone. The covenant of law, however, not only involved mediators (angels and Moses) but mutual obligations on the two parties (God and Israel).”
B. (:21-22) God’s Law Should Not be Stretched Beyond Its Intended Purpose
1. God’s Law is Not an Enemy to God’s Promises
“Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be!”
2. God’s Law Can Never Provide Justification
“For if a law had been given, which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.”
3. God’s Law Accomplished Its Intended Purpose
“But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”