For a start let’s look at the differences between Abraham
and Moses. To Abraham God gave the promise, but to Moses He gave the Law. The
promise to Abraham states what God will do but the Law to Moses states what men
must do. The promise to Abraham was based on God’s grace, plan and initiative,
but the Law of Moses was based on men’s duty, works and responsibility. And the
promise to Abraham dealt with grace and blessing, but the Law to Moses dealt
with commandments and works.
In this passage, Paul showed how his opponents
were wrong in trying to use the Law to cancel the promise that God had made. In
his arguments, he showed how the Law did not annul the promise but instead
confirmed its necessity. He did it in two parts: in verses 15-18, he showed
that the Law did not cancel out the promise; then in verses 19-22, he showed
that the Law revealed the necessity of God’s promise.
In the custom of those days, when a covenant or will
had been ratified or confirmed, it was unalterable and could not be set aside. Paul’s
point was this: the law did not cancel out the promise of God. He argued that
if human’s will once confirmed would be unalterable, how much more the will of
God. The promise to Abraham was confirmed by God 430 years before the Law was
given. Therefore, the Law that came through Moses centuries later, could
neither set aside nor cancel the promise God had made. Hence, the inheritance
promised to Abraham was not based on law but on a promise, and it was clear
that Abraham received it as a promise. Besides, it was the Law that revealed
that necessity for God’s promise. From verses 19-22, Paul asked and answered
two questions: The first one – “Why the Law then?” And the second question –
“Is the Law then contrary to the promise of God?”
Paul dealt
basically with his opponents’ accusation that in his message, he totally
dismissed the Law. Paul argued against their deliberate misrepresentation. He
did not say that the Law was unnecessary because he was quite clear that the
Law had a part to play in the Gospel. His argument was that the Law was never
given to save. It was given to show man’s sinfulness. And it was given until
Christ came, because it looked forward to the coming of the seed, through whom
the promise had been made.
In verse 20,
Paul then showed the inferiority of the Law to the promise. The Law, he said, came
through angels and Moses to man, but the promise of the Gospel was given to
Abraham directly from God. Abraham received it firsthand. That being the case, was
the law then contrary to God’s promise? Paul’s answer was no. In fact the Law was
not against the promise of God, as his opponents had made it out to be. He
argued that the Law was given to curb men’s transgression. And the fact that
men could not even keep the Law tells us that it was not able to accomplish its
purpose. The obvious truth is that the Law was not able to justify man. If it
could, righteousness would have come through the Law. But the naked truth
remained that the Law cannot make men righteous, because as sinners they break
the Law every day. Hence, the promise was all the more vital and necessary. The
Scriptures have declared that every human is a sinner, bound in their sin, but praise
God, now all who believe in Christ can receive the promise of righteousness.
Now as the Father looks at us He sees not what we
used to be, but He sees Jesus in us. He sees us covered by the righteousness of
Jesus. Beloved, we are forgiven, made righteous and set free to serve His
purpose!