Of course, we're in the middle
of the apostles' flow of thought. For the sake of brevity and length,
we have to do that. But there's a question that is
raised out of the apostles' teaching, and he wants to deal with that
and deal with it thoroughly for the sake of the Jew. So in verse
19, the question is raised in light of the flow of thought,
Wherefore then the law? And he adds, it was added because
of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made and ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now, a mediator is not of one,
but God is one. Is the law then against the promises
of God? God forbid. For if there had
been a law given which could have given life, verily, righteousness
should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded,
all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were
kept under the law, shut up under the faith, which should afterward
be revealed." Now that part, that's the first part of our
text for today. If you read very carefully and
compare, you will find that there are many things alike in the
epistle of Romans and in the Galatian epistle. One being longer
than the other, of course, but they do cover many of the same
thing and make the same point in regard unto the law. And this is especially true with
regard to the law of God. And one thing that they have
in common, Romans and Galatians, is dealing with the law that
they might have a proper understanding of it. It was used and perverted
by the Jews, and Paul stood to correct that error that they
had fallen into, for they had made it a necessary means of
entering into righteousness or being justified in the sight
of God. And we now come to that issue
by asking ourselves a question, what is the reason that Paul
puts forth that question in verse 19. Why does he stop here and
raise that question and then give it such a lengthy and a
good answer? What is the reason that Paul
stops and asks why the law was even given? or for whose sake
does he ask that question? Is it for the sake of the Jews
in that church, the Gentiles in that church, or for both of
them and us as well? Obviously, there is a very good
reason why Paul feels that it is necessary to raise the question,
and then he feels obliged and compelled to give them a satisfactory
answer to that question. Now, here's the question. Why
the law? Why was it given? Or, what was
its purpose? And he asked that in light of
what he had said earlier. We notice the word, therefore,
that begins this particular verse. Why, therefore, the law? This implies that the question
is related unto something that had been said in the earlier
part of the letter or the epistle. Something that especially Paul
had written that might cause a Jew to raise the question that
we have in verse 19. such as a Jew might say, well,
if all you have said about the law is true, why then was the
law even given? And whether the question was
actually asked, or whether Paul, the great anticipator from his
teaching, that it would be raised, and that therefore it necessarily
deserved an answer. Now not of great concern by many
today, but in that day it was of great concern, the question. Now the issue is what Paul had
said that might give the equation for them to ask the question,
why then was the law given? If I might repeat, if what you
have said is true, why then was the law ever given. Now, let's
ask ourselves the question, what has Paul said in the previous
part of this epistle that might raise the question? Well, here's
some things that Paul had said earlier, such as back in chapter
2 and verse 16, knowing that a man is not justified by the
law, or for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified
in his sight." He has said again in chapter 2 and verse 19, As
for me, he said, I am dead under the law that I might live unto
the Lord Jesus Christ. In chapter 3, verses 1 through
5. Again, he appeals to their very
own experience of the people to whom he was writing. That
they had not received the Spirit of God or the miracles that they
saw by the works of the law, but it came in conjunction with
a hearing of faith or the gospel. Again, in Galatians 3, This time,
v. 6-9, he reiterates there how
Abraham was blessed and he was justified by faith before the
law was ever given. Now that's a strong point. Then
again, in Galatians 3, and v. 10-14, the law curses Paul writes
unto them, by it none are justified for the law, he says, is not
of faith. Christ is the Redeemer from the
curse of the law. And it is by that that Gentiles
are able to partake of the promise, the heir, and the blessing of
Abraham. That if it were by law, the Gentiles
would be excluded from the blessings of Abraham. And Paul would persuade
the Jews that the greatest connection that any could have to Abraham
is not to have his blood flowing in one's veins, but to have the
faith of Abraham. It is not literal descendancy
from Abraham, but it is those that are of faith. This is the
most blessed union to Abraham. It is not those who are his descendants
by blood. It is those who share his faith
and believe as did Abraham. Then in verse 15 through verse
18, Paul makes a very forceful set of arguments for their sake
concerning the promise and the covenant as it was delivered
to Abraham. And then he speaks of how the
law relates unto the promise. And this correlation here is
a masterpiece from the Apostle Paul. The question is this. What effect did the law, if any,
have upon the promise that was made to Abraham 430 years before
the law was ever given? Well, first of all, look at verse
15 in that section. Paul, in effect, as J.B. Lightfoot has pointed out and
wrote, draws an illustration from the common dealings of man
concerning the making of covenants, saying in verse 15, I speak as
a man. That is, I'm using the terminology
of men. I'm using the example of men. And that's this. When a covenant
is made, when it is established, and when it is ratified, when
it's drawn up, when it is agreed upon and ratified, then, he said,
even among men, it cannot be altered, it cannot be revoked,
and it cannot be annulled. This is true, he said. even of
man's covenant, how much less then may the divine covenant
and the divine promises ever be altered or ever be annulled. So that the covenant and the
promise with Abraham is inviolable. It is immune from attack or from
change. It cannot be disannulled and
taken away and lose its effect and be gone. Even a man's covenant,
Paul said, is looked upon in that manner. Then look at verse
16. Before finishing his argument,
the apostle shows that Christ is the promised seed of Abraham. This throws us far aloof, perhaps,
that it is Christ that is the spiritual seed of Abraham. who
is to fulfill the spiritual blessing. Now, Isaac was the promised son
under things physical, mundane, and temporal. Christ is the seed
in which the spiritual children of Father Abraham are to be called,
are to be blessed, and to receive an inheritance. Then verse 17,
as we move along, the apostle now is ready to make to them
a very major point. And he resumes his argument about
the performance and the stability of the covenant of promise to
Abraham. Notice, he writes, This is what
I say. This is what I have to say or
what I want to say. The point that I am making is
this. The promise came before the law. Now that's a very important point
for us to keep in our mind. The covenant with Abraham, the
promise to Abraham that he would have a numerous seed, and that
all the seed of the earth would be blessed by him, Paul points
out here, came 430 years before the law. And as the principle
that is set out back in verse 15, A covenant, once confirmed,
cannot be altered, it cannot be disannulled by something that
comes in so much later and comes along in beside it. And says
Paul, the promise And the covenant made unto Abraham was confirmed
of God before in Christ Jesus. So that the law, which followed
after 430 years to be exact, cannot disannul, cannot deny
or take away or annul the promise. Cannot make it invalid. It cannot do away with the terms
of the covenant. It cannot cancel it out. It cannot
override the promise that the law coming in 430 years later
cannot and does not override the promise. So that the law
then, which followed after, cannot disannul. Paul mentions the time
span as being 430 years. But actually, the time span is
irrelevant in this particular case, even if the law had been
given the next week, or the next month, or the next year, the
results would have been exactly the same. That it would not cancel,
not annul, and not override the promise. Now in verse 18 is a
very reasoned conclusion from the pen of the apostle. If the
inheritance be of law, it is no more a promise. If by law,
then not a promise. It cannot be by promise if it
is dependent upon some condition in the law. In this, Paul resembles
what he has said in the Roman letter, Romans 11 and verse 6. If it is by works, that is, righteousness
and justification, then it is no more of grace and vice versa. Galatians 3 verse 18, the last
part, look at it. God gave it to Abraham by promise. That means He freely, and as
Gil said, without any consideration of the works of the law whatsoever,
gave the promise to Abraham. It was given to Abraham by free
promise and, hear me, was not contingent upon any conditions
in the keeping of the law. It was given as a free, unmerited
favor to our father Abraham. God bestowed that promise upon
Abraham as an absolutely free gift. And that many years before
the law ever came, or the law ever entered, Abraham was settled
in the promise that God had made unto him. Now, we do understand,
do we not, that this law is in the form of the Decalogue, that
is, the Ten Commandments, or, inclusive of the Mosaic law,
that they were not from the beginning. Neither of them were from the
very beginning in the form in which they were given unto Israel
for them to observe and live under. But as Paul said in our
text in verse 19, and it's so important, it was added. We look at that because that
gives us a clue here. as to what we are looking at. It was added. It was added to the promise,
but long after the promise was made. There's another passage
much like that found in Romans chapter 5 and verse 20, where
Paul says, after all that discussion of Adam's sin, he said this,
the law entered that the offense might abound. And here in our
text, he said, it was added because of transgression. When Paul says
in Galatians 3 and verse 19 that the law entered, or that the
law came, or that the law was added, and that on account of
transgression, does he mean what? Does he mean, A, to restrain
them, to hold them in check? Is that what Paul has to say
about the law being added because of transgression? Or, B, does
he mean the law was added that it might reveal and manifest
and make known and bring to light transgression? We do read in
Romans chapter 3 And verse 20, by the law is the knowledge of
sin. The law brings a knowledge of
sin. Until the law, sin was in the
world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Romans
5 and verse 13. But here in Galatians 3 and 19,
it is not Paul's intention to name every specific use and purpose
of the divine law. But, to answer that great question
in the minds of his readers, perhaps in our mind, if the law
is not a means and not an instrument of attaining righteousness or
justification, and if the inheritance does not come by law, it's on
the other hand by free promise, What then is the law is the question
that Paul is raising. Why was it given? What purpose
does it serve? If it does not justify, if it
does not make a man righteous in the sight of God. Now Paul
tells them some things about the law. Let's note it. Number
one. In verse 19, it was added by
reason of transgressions. The second thing we notice, also
in verse 19, that it was temporary. It was added till, up till, up
until the point when the seed should come. Notice the third
thing in verse 19, and that is it was ordained by angels in
the hand of a mediator. That mediator, of course, is
Moses. And in verse 20, We notice something
else. A mediator is not one who acts
in regard to one, but who acts in regard unto two. A mediator
is between two or more. Now, in other places, the mentions
of the angel in the giving of the law is to magnify the glory
and the majesty of the law. But here in Galatians, chapter
3, he thinks that they have a very good point who say and who think
that Paul would have his readers and also have us to see as well
that while God gave the moral and the ceremonial law by Moses
as a mediator, and even angels were included in that blessed
transaction. God gave the law by means of
Moses and by angels. And I think here is Paul's argument
to show the superiority of the promise. Yes, in giving the law,
he used a mediator. He used the holy angels of God. And yet, He gave the promise
directly and without a mediator unto Abraham. Without a mediator,
angels or Moses or any other. You'll see that in Genesis 17,
verse 1. The Lord appeared unto Abram
and essentially made a covenant. Remember what Stephen said in
his great sermon there in Acts chapter 7 and verse 2? He says
this, he reminds them, the God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham. So this is Paul's point. The
law came by a mediator, but God gave the promise directly, face
to face, unto Abraham. Now we come to the second question. in Galatians 3 and verse 21. What then? In view of what has
been said, particularly in verse 19 and verse 20. Does that mean
we are to conclude that the law is against and is antagonistic
to the promise of God made to Abraham? Will the law, because
of the transgression of the heirs of promise invalidate that promise
and take away their inheritance? How can those in whom the law
finds sin realize the promise and the inheritance? In the mind
of the objector, law and promise seem to be contrary the one to
the other. Not able to subsist side by side
or work in agreement. So is the law then against? Is the law contrary? Or is it
in any way antagonistic toward the promise made unto Abraham? Paul's patent answer is always
the same. God forbid. Let it not be. May it never be. Perish the thought. And he makes a logical conclusion
in the last half of verse 21 and verse 22. If a law had been given, able
to give life, then righteousness should have been by the law. For to give life, the law must
provide a righteousness pleasing unto God. And verse 22, he goes
on to say, so far from the law providing righteousness, the
Scriptures have actually concluded all to be shut up under sin,
so that the promise might by faith and in and through Jesus
Christ be realized by those who believe upon the Lord and the
Savior. Now in verse 22, let us look
there. The opening but is very forceful,
as Paul writes. And it has the sense. On the
contrary, but on the contrary, not only is righteousness not
by the law, not only has the Scripture concluded us all to
be shut up under sin, to be in bondage and in servitude, all
without a single exception, and incarcerated under a lordship
that the law and sin has over them, holding them under as prisoners. Not only does the law not provide
righteousness, but the law, if that means, are instruments whereby
we were kept as prisoners or shut up. Notice the word, that,
in the middle of the verse. We have the word, but, on the
other hand, or contrary. Then we have the word, that,
in the middle of the verse, and it has this hint. In order that. For the condemnation is not without
remedy. Thank God for that. In fact,
the purpose of this spiritual bondage that Paul tells them
about is to direct such unto the remedy which is to be found
in Jesus Christ. For the word that is what in
grammar would be called telling. T-E-L-I-C. And it simply means
that a clause or conjunction that expresses the purpose or
the aim or the end. So, that. The purpose, the aim,
or the end. So what Paul is saying is, God
has made the enslaving bondage of the law a handmade unto grace
and unto faith in Christ. For it is the consistent testimony
of the inspired Scripture that all the world is guilty and shut
up in their guilt before God, so that evidence that righteousness
is not by the law because it is the law that curses the sinner. Galatians 3.10-13 In fact, in
1 Corinthians 15.56 There is a statement that just
has been like a stick of dynamite unto me all of the years when
Paul writes this. 1 Corinthians 15, verse 56, The
strength of sin is the law. Now how are you going to get
loose from sin by the law when the strength of sin is the law? The law gives sin, and hear me
carefully, Don't misunderstand. The law gives sin both its being
and its strength. Sin takes occasion by the law. Romans 7 and 8, as Paul found
out. The law works wrath. Romans 4
and verse 15. Such is the nature of the law,
that instead of it mortifying any of the sins of the saints,
it rather stirs them up. Well, in both sinners and in
saints. Paul says he found that to be
the case. If you read his testimony in
Romans chapter 7, it was the law that stirred up in him all
manner of covetousness. and discovered to him that he
was a sinner. A man named Jeremiah Burroughs
wrote in an article titled, The Saints' Treasury, and it's on
page 95, these words, "...it, the law, doth stir up lust, though
accidentally, and makes our sin out to be in measure sinful."
By it, the knowledge of sin comes unto us, Romans 3.20, and in
this time it serves to shut sinners up unto Christ and let us acknowledge
that conviction of sin is a necessary preparation for bringing one
unto Christ. Whoever came to Christ They were
not under a sense of their conviction of their sin, and of their unworthiness,
and of the danger under their soul. We must understand that
the law cannot contradict itself, nor can it reverse its ruling
or its sentence. In that, the law, once having
pronounced us guilty, It cannot, on the other hand, justify a
sinner. Not even have a hand in our justification. For it has pronounced us guilty
before God. Now, coming to the 23rd verse,
and here we have the first of two metaphors which Paul uses
in order to picture for his readers the work of the law. The first
one, in verse 23, is of a prison. And the second one is of a tutor
or a pedagogue or a child trainer in verse 24 and following. We'll look at that in our second
service today. But now look at verse 23. This
is very important. Before faith came, we were kept
under the law, shut up under the faith which should afterward
be revealed." This is closely related to the last tact of the
22nd verse. That the promise by faith might
be realized to them that believe. Then Paul speaks of that time
before faith came. But before faith came. He says, we were. And I think
that the we should be understood as particularly and especially
the Jews. For he is directing himself toward
the Jewish portion of the Galatian assembly. Then in chapter 4 and
verse 8, begins to address himself more particularly unto the Gentiles. But the apostle, in verse 23,
speaks of the condition of the Jews. And he does so from both
Time and condition. From both their time and from
their condition, He reminds them. As to time, He says, before faith
came. And look at those words very
carefully. Prior to faith. Prior to the
coming of faith. As to condition, we were kept
under, shut up, garrisoned in. as to time before faith came,
as to condition we were garrisoned in or guarded about on every
side. And of course, we are stuck here
on a high center, kind of like a turtle on a fence post. We can go no further until we
define how Paul intends to use the word faith. And it's coming
before faith came. Now, in saying faith, I don't
think Paul has in mind personal, individual, saving faith. But does the Apostle have in
mind the Christian revelation? The faith once delivered to the
saints that came in with Christ. Perhaps there is a contrast in
this passage that will give us some closure as to the question
of what Paul means by faith coming. In verse 23, Paul writes this,
before faith came. While in verse 25 he writes,
but after that faith is come. Now that faith has come, or faith
having come, thus the contrast before and after. Before faith
came, faith having come, both in regard unto faith." Now, Gill
wrote, this is not a reference to personal faith, he said, or
to the grace of faith, since they had this under the old economy. We do not rob the fathers of
faith under the old economy. The foremost one having faith
was Abraham under that old economy, and it was a justifying faith. He does not say that such things
as personal faith did not exist before the coming of Christ.
For consider Hebrews chapter 11. All of those Old Testament
saints and faith, the references to them and their faith. Thus
it is not meant that the fathers who lived under the law or the
old economy had no personal, or what we call saving faith,
under God or toward the Lord Jesus Christ. John Eady referred
to this as faith in Him unincarnate. For you remember, Abraham looked
for the day of Christ, and he saw it, and he was glad. But look again at verse 23, which
should put the question to rest in our minds. It starts before
faith came. And it ends with the faith which
should afterward be revealed or later should be revealed. The faith about to be revealed. Again, he speaks of a period
of time. What was that period of time
from when unto when? It ended with the incarnation
and death of Christ and the introduction of the new revelation. Verse
19, till the seed should come. A special seed should appear. It was a promise to Abraham was
to appear in a certain time. Now, we should notice that in
Galatians 3, Paul is using Abraham as he did in Romans as a model. And the blessing and promise
to his spiritual seed, but to the promise of Abraham God brought
in the law along beside the promise. Not to supersede it, not to replace
it, but to aid in the realization of the promise. Let me share
you a quote from the exposition of that man, John Edie. It's
one of the best that I've found to describe where we are. He
said, and I quote, the mosaic dispensation providentially introduced
between the Abraham promise and the coming of the seed was a
preparative and an educative instrument which had the effect
of multiplying sins and displaying their heinousness against God
as preparatory to the appearing of the one who could save them
from the curse of the broken law." The words of John Eady. And they hearken back to verse
19. The law was added because of transgression. And in verse
23, it kept us under the law. And I tend to agree with Calvin
here, who said that by the law, Paul embraces the whole economy
of the old covenant and the people who lived under it. Paul even
likens the law to a prison a guardhouse, a garrison, in which they were
greatly herded up and restricted and held in custody there, as
it were. The words kept under, according
to Gill and others, this can be a military term taken from
military terminology, picturing them being prisoners under military
guard and guarded and watched. Not allowed to go. where they
would, like in Acts 28, verse 16. Paul had a soldier that kept
him. Everywhere Paul went, he was
in the custody of that soldier. It watched him. It guarded him.
He was under supervision. And in effect, was under arrest
during that time, a soldier over him. But let us inquire. In what
sense Paul likens them to be under the bondage of the law,
closely guarded and held in ward. Strictly limited in such things
as diet and drink and dress. They were ostracized from the
other nations of the world. They were separated from the
other nations. It was filled with commandments
and prohibitions. Their law said to them again
and again, thou shalt not, thou shalt not, and prescribed many
instances of death for the transgression of the law. No wonder Peter called
it a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. What Lange's commentary called,
quote, the continual terrifying denunciation of its curse in
case of transgressions, unquote. How many were put to death for
transgressions of the law that cried out against them, sinner,
sinner, thou must die. It became a separating wall between
them and the Gentiles, as Paul describes in Ephesians chapter
2. Thus, when Paul says they were
kept or guarded, he is not thinking of the protective mercy and goodness
of God, but of a severe and tight restriction that was put upon
them. And a final point from Paul this
morning, that in their bondage to the law, by being held, by
experiencing the rigor that it exercised upon them, they were
shut up to the faith about to be revealed. There was but one
remedy for their condition. and the law, as it were, herded
them toward that remedy. They could not become free of
the rigor or the curse of the law except by the death of Christ
upon the cross. It was in Christ only. And the
restrictive oversight of the law could only be ended with
the appearance and redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ from
the law which had such vigor enslaved them, they were then
by God's design and ordination to pass over into the liberty
of the gospel. Or in other words, their generation
passed from one economy to the other, from the old to the new,
from the dispensation of the law to the revelation of the
gospel. from Moses unto Christ, and from
legal restriction to gospel liberty did Christ bring them. Romans
10, verse 4. Christ is the end of the law
for righteousness to everyone believing. Remember our study
from Romans 7? We are dead to the law by the
body of Christ. The Jews, the most of them, misconstrued
the true purpose and nature of the law, and they turned it into
a covenant of works. Modern Christendom has sought
to mingle together law and grace, and therein is much confusion
in the church today. Closing with a statement by Theodore
Vandergrove, who put it this way, mixing law and gospel leaves
a poor man sitting in his misery. neither being rightly convinced
of his sin, nor rightly comforted by God's grace. As some would
melt Moses and Christ into one, so that the former loses his
curse and the latter loses his grace. And that's the danger
of mixing law and grace together. And I would say this in closing,
that the hardest theological examination you will take, one
of them, is to rightly understand and divide the law of God. It's
hard, difficult, takes a while, must be careful, many errors
can creep in by not rightly dividing. All right, thank you. Let's stand
together for a final prayer before we go to our lunch.