The thesis I am going to propound is this: that the Mosaic dispensation or covenant was like the Abrahamic covenant – one of grace.  And that its governing and undergirding principle was one that provided for salvation by grace through faith.  So that the saints in that period were not only saved by grace, but that the very salvation they enjoyed was one in terms of the very provisions enunciated in this Mosaic covenant.  You see the difference: dispensationalists say, yes, the saints were always saved by salvation through grace on the basis of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.  But nevertheless the principle that undergirded the Mosaic dispensation and covenant, from Calvary to Sinai, was the very antithesis of grace.  Since you cannot have two exclusive operating at the same time, they enjoyed that salvation in spite of the governing principle of which the governing principle of the dispensation in which they lived.  We say on the contrary, they enjoyed salvation by grace through faith in the dispensation in which they lived provided for that – the very same salvation.

 

In order to demonstrate this, we have to deal with various passages.  Gal. 3:17-22

Before we study this passage in detail we have to recognize that Dispensationalists (as well as others) construe the Abrahamic covenant as one of grace.  So it is called by Dispensationalists a covenant of promise.  Yet in respect of the contrast between law and grace, it is wholly gracious.  That of course stands in as sharp antithesis to the Mosaic covenant as does the new covenant on this dispensationalist construction.  Our dispute is here is to the Abrahamic covenant as one entirely of grace [inaudible]. 

 

In this passage, Paul deals expressly with the relation of the Mosaic economy to the Abraham covenant.  If the dispensationalist construction is correct, then the administration at Sinai stands in the sharpest possible opposition to the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant.  The Abrahamic covenant is altogether of grace, whereas the Mosaic covenant is one of works in sharpest possible contrast with grace.  If that is true – if there is that antithesis – we certainly should expect some indication of that in this passage because it is precisely the question Paul is dealing with.  So it is very relevant to ask the question, “what precisely do we find in this passage respecting the relation of these two covenants/economies one to the other?”

 

One further preliminary remark, in order to make clear the denotation I give to a certain expression.  You would have noticed that Paul speaks in this passage of the Law.  But what is the Law?  The Law which was 430 years after – what does he mean by “the Law.”  Does he mean simply the commandment of the Mosaic institution, or does he mean the institution itself – the economy.  I think it is more exegetically tenable to interpret “nomos” in this passage in the inclusive sense – referring to the whole institution/economy.  That is, as a synonym of the Sinaitic administration.  It is that sense that I take nomos is the discussion – in the earlier part of my discussion.  It is in that sense that I understand it, because I think it is more exegetically tenable.  It is the law “that was 430 years after” - Surely he is talking about the administration in its entirety.  Then he asks: “why then the law?  It was added.”  That shows that he is talking about the administration.  But it wouldn’t make any difference for the force of Paul’s teaching here in reference to our question if you took “nomos” in the more restrictive sense of the strictly legal/legislative elements of the administration, particularly the 10 Commandments and the other statutes and arguments.  In fact, if you took it in a more restrictive sense, then it would be more forceful.  Then the question would be focused would be on what is specifically legislative in this administration.   That would be [reinforce] the cogency of Paul’s argument.  But take it more in the sense of the Sinaitic administration, bearing in mind that the other interpretation wouldn’t make any difference to the point.

 

First of all, in verses 17-18 what do we find with reference to this question?  In verse 17 Paul say: “This I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law which came after 430 years does not disannul so as to bring the promise to naught.”  The law (Sinaitic Administration) coming 430 years, does not make void so as to bring the promise to naught.  This means that the administration of the law at Sinai did not disestablish or abrogate the Abrahamic covenant or the promises which that covenant comprised.  That is so patent that Dispensationalists say the same thing.  They are insistent that the Abrahamic covenant is not abrogated by the Mosaic, but the point of criticism here is that the implication of Paul’s thought here is overlooked or not appreciated.  For surely Paul thought this – that the Sinaitic administration was not inconsistent with, far less contradictory of the principle of grace and promise governing the Abrahamic covenant. 

 

Now of course Paul fully recognized the absolute antithesis between justification by works and justification by grace.  Paul epistles, Romans and Galatians, are built on that antithesis – Justification by law and justification by grace.  It is that antithesis enunciated in verse 18: “if the inheritance is of law, it is not longer of promise.”  But the purpose for which he appeals to that antithesis in verse 18 is not at all to show that the Sinaitic administration was one of law in opposition to grace.  But really the very opposite purpose.  That is the force of the connection between verses 17 and 18.  Namely, that the administration at Sinai did not have the effect of annulling or suspending the Abrahamic covenant of grace.  We need to read the two verses again to see that that is Paul’s point:

 

“But I say a covenant confirmed beforehand by God [Abrahamic] the law which came 430 years afterward does not bring the promise to naught.  Why?  If the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise.” 

 

At this point you can detect the underlying thought of these two verses to be that the Sinaitic administration does not in any way interfere with the principles in terms of which the Abrahamic covenant was given or upon which it was based. 

 

But we have confirmation of that in verse 19.  Paul asks here the pointed question: “why then the law.”  That is our question.  What is the Sinaitic administration?  What was its purpose?  Why did it come in?  Paul’s answer to that question is significant: “it was added [it was an addition – can you question that?  In other words, it was an appendix].”  You see how remote from Paul’s mind is the idea that is was a parenthesis coming in between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant Dispensation.  It was a parenthesis because the principle that governed the Abrahamic dispensation/covenant has been suspended.   There has to be some kind of interference, suspension, or parenthesis – for the Dispensationalists.  There isn’t the remotest suggestion in Paul’s language of any such construction.  The thought is clearly that it was an enlargement, supplementation, for the purpose of conserving and promoting the ends contemplated in the Abrahamic promise.  There is not the remotest suggestion of incompatibility of contrast, opposition, or contradiction.  That is precisely what the dispensationalist view demands – a total contradiction (as far as the governing principle is concerned).  The language of the apostle is language that points to perfect congruity, agreement.  In other words, the Mosaic administration is ancillary to the promise.  It is very strange that the Dispensationalist view – that the language he would use would point in the very opposite direction from that of suspension, contrast, contradiction. 

 

Third point?

Now we come to verse 21.  This is additional confirmation of our interpretation of 17-18.  In verse 21, “is the law then against the promises of God?  God forbid!”  Here Paul expressly says what we have been interpreting his thought to be in 17-19.  Because he asks the pointed question: “Is the law [Sinaitic administration] then against the promises of God?”  κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ].  The modern Dispensationalist would have to say, “yes, by all means.”  Because it is governed by a principle of works as opposed to a principle of grace.  But instead what Paul says is what we must render in English as “God forbid.”  That is an OT expression which implied in the Greek form “μὴ γένοιτο”.  The force of it would have to be that of the OT formula: “God forbid.”  That is the strongest negative the apostle has at his disposal.

 

We have come to this inescapable conclusion: to interpret the Sinaitic administration in any of its elements or aspects as a promulgation or reenactment of a system of covenant of works is to contradict Paul in this one passage – which more than any other in his epistles deals with the express question of the relation of the Mosaic administration to the Abrahamic covenant.

 

Fourth Point

Now we come to verse 21b – “for if the law were given which is able to make alive, verily by the law righteousness would have been.”  It is very likely that Paul is using the word “nomos” here in the more restrictive sense.  There is some suggestion of that in the very form of the statement: “if the law had been given…”  It makes no difference.  The main point is that it is impossible to attain to righteousness and life by works of law.  The reason for which Paul appeals to this is that because of the inviolable truth that works of law do not justify we are not to find in the Mosaic economy any proposition or proposal of such an arrangement.  That is the reason he is appealing to it here.  What Paul is saying is this: we must not interpret the Mosaic dispensation of law in terms of the principle antithetical to the promise or grace for the very central reason that the antithetical principle is an impossibility. 

 

Let me read the whole of verse 21 again: “Is the law therefore against the promises of God? God forbid! [no antithesis or contradiction] For if a law had been given that was able to make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.  Then you have the strong adversative of verse 22: but the Scripture shut up all things under sins.  Paul’s thought is this: if it had been possible for righteousness (justification) to have been by the law, then certainly by the law it would have been.  But since that is an utter impossible – utterly inconceivable – how ridiculous it would be to interpret the Mosaic economy in terms of a provision that has no possibility of ever coming to fruition.  Paul is saying that he did not give this provision on the basis of an impossible hypothesis that would have never yielded any fruit. 

 

NEXT CLASS

 

We proceed now with our subject, which is (broadly speaking) the unity of the covenant of grace.  We have come to the fourth point in connection with the passage in Gal. 3:17-22.  And that concerns the second part of verse 21.  We were just dealing with that at the close of the hour: “if a law had been given which was able to make alive, verily of law righteousness would have been.”  Now the obvious implication is that it would have been impossible to attain to righteousness by works of law.  But what we have to take particular account of is the reason for which Paul appeals to that principle in this instance.  The reason is that because of its truth we are not to find in the Mosaic economy the enunciation or proposal of any such arrangement.  Note the connection between the first part of verse 21 and the second part: “Is the law against the promises of God?  God forbid.  For if a law had been given which was able to make alive, verily from law righteousness would have been.”  What Paul is saying in effect is that we must not interpret the Mosaic economy in terms of a principle antithetical to promise and grace for the simple reason that anything antithetical is an impossibility.  That God therefore did not promulgate a dispensation on the basis of what is an utter impossibility.  In other words, it does not find its organizing and operating principle in a covenant of works.

 

Fifth Point

Now fifth and finally, we look at Galatians 3:22: “But the Scripture has shut up all things under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to all who believe.”  Paul is appealing to Scripture in support of his interpretation of the Mosaic economy.  By “Scripture” he must mean the OT.  Since he has no qualification, he must mean the OT in its entirety.  So quite obviously, Paul finds in the OT the principle which governs the Gospel of Grace.  He finds in the OT as a unit the principles that govern the Gospel of Grace: “The Scripture shut up all things under sin that the promise by grace in Christ Jesus might be given to them that believe.”  Do you think that it would be feasible to appeal unqualifiedly to the OT in order to support the principle of grace and faith?  Such a large segment of OT (and its history) was governed by a principle opposite of grace?  I think you can see the impossibility of verse 22 on any other basis than that the unified witness of the OT is to shut men up to faith, and if faith, to grace, to promise.  You see this then, verse 22, brings to clear focus (definitive focus) what has been the argument of the apostle Paul all the way from verse 17.  Again, verse 22 confirms the interpretation of verses 17-21, which I have been presenting, is incompatible of any other construction of the relation that the Mosaic covenant sustains to the Abrahamic.  In a word, it is that the Abrahamic covenant is the fabric around which is woven the Mosaic rituals and ordinances.  You could go ahead in Galatians 3 and take 23 into 6 to get additional confirmation of all this.