Galatians 3:15-22 –Abraham and Moses contrasted

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!