I. THE COVENANT ON 1TB OWN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION. 1. It stands vrrevocab~ ~nd indestructible because it has been confirmed by (!od, that is, by an oath ; for, Because he could swear by no greater, he aware by himself, sayina Surely blessina I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee" (Heh. vi. 13, 14). This oath"is to us the sure ground of hope. 2. It has ea;clusive relation to Ohrist regarded as the Head of the Church. He sealed this covenant with his blood, and thus the "cup of blessing" in the Lord's Supper has become "the new covenant in his blood." All covenant blessings reach us by Christ through his Spirit. 8. It stood for ages alone. The Law came four hundred and thirty years after. II. THE INABILITY OF THE LAW TO AFFECT THE COVENANT. 1. The Law and the covenant proceed on two entirely different lines, and cannot therefore traverse each otlurr's course. 2. The lateness of the Law, as an historic institute, leaves the covenant as it found it in the ages of its undisputed validity. Therefore the Law cannot disannnl the covenant so as to throw invalidity into the promise. III. THE INHERITANCE NOT POSSIBLE BY THE LAW, BUT BY THE PROMISF.. "For if tbe inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise; but God has given it to Abraham by promise." I. The inheritance covers more than the land of Canaan; it involves "the heirship of the world" (Rom. iv. 13); but it syrn bolizes the blessings of the Mes- siah's kingdom, a.nd especially of that" better country" which was an object of wistful expectation to Abraham himself. 2. If the Law abrogates the covenant, the inherit- ance would in that case come of Law; but it is positively asserted that "God has given it "-the perfect tense marking the duration of the blessing-" to Abraham by promise." Vers.19, 20.-The use and nature of the Law. "What then is the Law?" The apostle's reasoning seemed to make the Law a. quite superfluous thing. In the eyes of the J udaists it was God's most glorious institute. It was necessary, therefore, to show its nature, office, and characteristics, and its relation to the covenant of promise. It was really inferior to the dispensation of grace on four grounds, which themselves explain its nature a.nd use. I. THE LAw DISCOVERS BIN. " It was superadded because of transgressions." 1. It tDaS not to check sin. 2. Nor to create sin. 3. But to discover it. "By the Law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. iii. 20). This discovery would necessarily multiply trans- gressions (Rom. v. 20), just as the introduction of light into a darkened room makes manifest the things that were before unseen. "I had not known sin but by the Law " (Rom. vii. 7). Many sins were not seen to be sins at all till the Law threw its intense light upon them. Thus the great service of the Law was to awaken conviction of sin in the heart and to make men feel their need of a. Saviour. The ceremonial and the moral Law had equally this effect. The system of sacrifice had no meaning apart from the fact of sin. What a. mistake, then, wa.s that of the J udaists who imagined that the Law could give them a title to eternal life in virtue of their obedience to its commands I II. 'l'E:E LAW WAS A TEMPORARY AND INTERMEDIATE DISPENSATION. "It was super- added ... till the seed shall have come to whom the promise has been made." '!'his refors to the coming of Christ who is" the Seed." The apostle puts himself back to the tirue of giving the Law, and looks forward from that starting-point to the future incarn[ltion. The Law was thus a mighty parenthesis coming in between Abraham's promise and the coming of the seed, and was specially preparative and disciplinary in relation to that future event. It was destined then to pass away as a dispensation, but the moral Law, which it held in its bosom, was to abide in its foll integrity. That La.w still exists in Christianity, with its old power of manifesting sin and carrying conviction to sinners so as to shut them up to Christ. III. THE LAW DID NOT OOJIIE DIBEOT FROM GoD TO lllAN, AS TIIE PROMISE CAME TO ABRAHAM, BUT THROUGH ANGELS BY A MEDIATOR. II Being ordained through angels ill the hand of a mediator." This is another point of inferiority. God gave the promise to Abraham immediately, not mediately by angels or through any intervention like that of Moses; unlike the Law, which was superadded through this double intervention. I. The share of angels in the giving of the Law. (1) Evidence of Scripture on the subject. Stephen says in his speech that the Israelites recoived the Law "at the ordinatiuu of angels," or "according to the arrangements of angels" (Acts vii. 53). 'l'he Law is eb~- 164 1'HE EPISTLE TO THE GA.J.ATIANS. [en. III, 1-20.
·where dr~crib~cl as "tl,c word ~poken by anp;els" (Ilch, ii. 2). Yet in tho history of tlie giving of the Law there is no reference to angels, not even to their prosence. In two passages their presence, but not their ministration, is referred to (Deut. xxxii. 2; Pa. b:nii. 17). (2) As the Law is said to have been ordained by means ofangeld and" the word spoken by angels," it is probable that the angels made it audible to the people or were connected with the terrible phenomena. which accompanied the giving of the Law. The angels ea.me between God and the people (Ps. lxviii. 17). (3) Tho presence of angels may have led in time to a perverted doctrine of angel-worship, against ,which the apostle warns the Colossians (Col. ii. 18). 2. The share of Moses in the giving of the Law. It was "ordained ... in the hand of a mediator," who wns Moses. He describes his own mediation: "I stood between you and the Lord at that time" (Deut. v. 6, ·2i). It was Moses who bore the tables of stone from God to the people. We are not to, suppose that the reference is designed to mark the inferiority of the Law. to the covenant of promise, which, too, had its Mediator, Jesus Christ the Lord. He is not coutra.s~itig the Law and the gospel, but the Law and the promise of Abraham; ap.d he asserts tJ:iat,' while in the one case the angels and Mosr.s had to do with its conveyance, God in the othr.r case gave the promise without the intervention of either man or angel; IV. THE LAW WAS DEPENDENT UPON CONDITIONS, TB;E PROMISE WAS ABSOLUTE, "Now, a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." The very idea of mediation implies two parties, who are to be brought into some relation with each other through the inter'l"eotion of a third person. In the case of the Law, there were two parties-:--God and the Jewish people, In the case of the promise, "God is one;" he is mediatorless -no one stands between him and Abraham, as Moses stood between God and the Israelites in the giving of the Law. There is a numerical contrast between•'·' one" and "ofone." •