Why the Law pt 2

All right, verse 19, what purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made and was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now, mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been given by the law. But the scripture was confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith, which would afterwards be revealed. Therefore, the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and for as many of you as were baptized into Christ and put on Christ, and there's neither Jew nor Greek, there's neither slave nor free, there's neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. I think the verses that follow really are nicely concluding what we're going to be talking about today. Who teaches next week?

Andrew does. So we have Andrew, Bob, and a sandwich. All right. So let's, as we usually do, kind of review where we left off last week. And again, this is Andrew's teaching from last week. So the Mosaic Laws were given to Israel. And ultimately, how does that relate to us, I think was the underlying theme of the lesson from last week. I think, you know, this came up as a point of discussion that was not clearly answered last week, but I think you need to pay attention to the lesson today. I think we're going to answer that question today.

The fact that even though the law was written to Israel, ultimately, I think we have a lot to say that goes beyond simply that application to the nation of Israel. So why was the law given? Well, Andrew recognized all these things are scriptural and part of the lesson last week, because of transgressions, to make sin manifest. Seems unusual that the law would make sin manifest, but it clearly is true, is it not? We can all experience that personally. To make sin known. to establish accountability to God, and for a time to Israel, I think, you know, as a kind of a promissory note for what was going to follow in terms of returning to Abraham's promise to be fulfilled at the cross.

So it was ordained through angels via the mediator, and the mediator was Moses, and ultimately that makes us turn to today's lesson. So any thoughts about last week that maybe I didn't capture in this review? All right, verse 21, is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not, or God forbid, we'll come back to that.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. Remember here, law is nomos, which is any law system, but I think in context, we have to interpret this as mosaic law. I mean, even though the broad law could be applied to any legal system you want to set up for yourself. So-called Christian religion is ultimately a lot of people in our faith in the body of Christ who are applying legal systems to their own walk. So if justification is by faith, sanctification is also by faith. The principle doesn't change. But here in context, nomos would be applied specifically to the Mosaic law.

Now, is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not, and this is God forbid, which is a, you know, maybe new King James or King James things. And if God somehow, is he somehow inconsistent here? And if not, why not? Is this an inconsistency of God? We can't ever call God inconsistent. But to someone who is not rightly dividing the word and truth, it might appear to be an inconsistency. Well, the thing is, there's so many denominations that go down that road. I mean, so obviously they think it is inconsistent.

I mean, really, because they're not reading this. Is God calling? Are these individuals calling God into the system, then, do you think? Well, they're not calling Him, but they must believe that He is, or they wouldn't be following the law. It's very clear. Well, all of covenant neo-evangelical Christianity is really applying law. They're applying the law. We say they're misapplying the law. What do they do with this, all of this art? Well, what do we do with it? Let's see if I can help here. So I think they're kind of, and I think I'm not sure which commentator I'm utilizing here, but I'm paraphrasing.

They're kind of two principles that are operational. The law system is placing the sinner in his legal position of being a sinner, and is calling for obedience. Whereas faith, which is Abraham's promise, and ultimately the cross, is all grace-based. So a legal system is entirely legal, and we're made legally subject to the sin nature we're all part of. But yet, we're going to come back to this, but there were people who lived, I think, were there not in the Old Testament.

So could the promise of the law of the seed have been made before the Mosaic law? What do you think? Why did God bless Abraham with his promise of the seed before the Mosaic law was given? I mean, I'm asking you to speculate. I just don't have an answer here for you, just a question to discuss. But this all goes into why the law then was given, because man continued to sin and needed to know that they were sinning, which was why the law, right? Okay, and the law, we've reviewed those principles of why the law was given on the previous slide. Why was Abraham's promise given before the law, do we think? Nobody has any thoughts about that. I think maybe a better question is why was the law given after Abraham's promise? Abraham's promise promised three things.

Promised a land, a seed, and a blessing. And the only way that seed could come is if it came through a people that was under the control of God and His commands. Christ couldn't have come if God hadn't chosen Israel as a nation to carry out His plan. And that included living a live in a somewhat perfect or righteous lifestyle as a nation, therefore the law was given.

But, you know, God had already made it pretty clear from the events of the Garden, subsequent, you know, events in terms of the Noahic Covenant and Ultimate Babel and everything that God's system was being violated in terms of his, you know, gift of Adam of life. But if you look at all the covenants, look at the Adamic covenant, it failed. You look at the Noahic covenant, it failed. Then suddenly he set up government, then he set up nations, and all of those have actually failed.

It wasn't until God decided, I'm going to choose one nation to bring my plan down through, and that was the nation Israel. And in order to bring that plan, He had to set up a system where they would be outwardly righteous, apart from the world. And that's what Israel was.

Okay, I'm pondering what you just said. Keep in mind that in Genesis 3.15, really, ultimately, what Abraham was promised was subsequent to the promise that God gave early in the Bible.

Genesis 3.15, right? Yes.

Ultimately, that's going to take place, but God chose a way for that through one nation, Israel, for that to take place. And of course, we know the promises to Israel as a nation are going to be even further delayed. But the promise to the Jew, the Jewish individual, is the same as it is to the Greek. And we'll come to that today. Even for the church age, even for us who are in Christ, we are part of the Abrahamic covenant.

We are. We are not part of the Mosaic law that's completely separate. Absolutely. That'll become clear today. Other thoughts here? By the way, this, you know, God forbid, or certainly not, is a single Greek word, mei, which is used hundreds of times in the New Testament. Not once or twice, but hundreds of times. Well, we're going to see it in Galatians, not Galatians, Romans 6 here again in a while.

It may never be. I think it's actually meidem, maybe. I don't know. I'm not trying. I think what I saw was simply one word, at least in the interlayer that I use. But all that aside, this, God forbid, or may it never be or, you know, you know. It certainly not is really kind of obviously a very God-centric command and statement that relates to things that shouldn't be. One of my favorite, that God forbids us should we continue in sin that grace may abound. God forbid, certainly not. But anyway, this is a commonly used phrase in terms of what the Lord has to say about various things that are stated in the scripture.

If there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. I think that is certainly something we know that can't be true. But there's no such law system for justification, sanctification, or glorification. Everything we experience as believers, I was saved, I'm being saved, and will be saved, is not part of the law. And in fact, if you think of the Ten Commandments being, again, suggested to me in the school, the Ten Commandments don't deal with anything that relates to grace and the life we have in the church age in Christ. So the answer to the question, is there any law system that could have been given to give righteousness?

Absolutely not. And remember always, righteousness is exclusively related to the seed or the Lord Jesus Christ. And a verse is one that I like so much, for he hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God again. So righteousness is entirely of the person and the Lord Jesus Christ. There's no other way that righteousness is declared or received.

All right, any other thoughts about verse 21? All right, verse 22, but the scripture has confined, which really, kind of an interesting term because it's really, it has concluded, but the confined gives the idea like being shut up as prisoners. So I kind of like the term confined because I think scripturally and in the original language, it's most accurate, although it seems confusing, but the scripture is confined all under sin.

I mean- Bob, we should have, you know, Hal Malloy had some great pictures of this. He had a little guy, you know, And he had the whole works. He did a great job. Remember those? Remember those in the jail cell for the sorority cell? I wish I had HAL's artistic abilities. Anyways, you can picture it.

So we're all under sin that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given by those who believe. Here is a very, very strong statement. It's heiress tense, indicative mood, and without distinction between Jew and Gentile, all of us, right? So in part, this answers the question that came up last week, even though the law was given to Israel, it's all of us. who were born in sin and are under sin. And ultimately, it was Israel who seemed to be shut up in kind of a prisonary kind of scenario. But the scripture has confined this. It's the scripture, not the law. This speaks for the entire Old Testament scripture, not just Israel, wherein all people are sinners and incapable of saving themselves.

And if we look at the principles of law, I'd like to go back to the first slide maybe, but let's go back there real quick. Because the law was given because of transgression to make sin manifest, to make sin known, to establish accountability, and a promissory note to Israel, a delaying promissory note to them until Abraham's promise was fulfilled. So anyway, ultimately the law was never meant to provide righteousness. And we, you know, there's some scripture that maybe is worth taking a look at.

You know, in Galatians 3.10, which is really quoting Deuteronomy 27.26, for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. For it's written, cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. And again, that's interpreted as mosaic law here. This is not any law system, but it could be true of any law system. But this is the mosaic law. Cursed is everyone, not just the Jew, but everyone, each and every one of us.

Psalm 143.2, do not enter judgment with your servant for in your sight, in your sight, no one is living in righteousness. No one living is righteous, David.

Romans 3.9, what then? Are we better than they? Not at all, for we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they're all under sin. So I think even though you could maybe misinterpret early on in the section of this portion of scripture, I think we can not deny the fact that scripture itself indicates that once Adam fell, we've all fell with him. You know, first Adam, second Adam. We could go back to Romans and go through that scenario, but I don't think we need to with this group.

So that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe. I mean, this is an incredibly important part of this particular text. And just turning to one of many verses, 2 Timothy 1, Paul would apostle Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life, which is in Christ Jesus. So the promise is not really justification. The promise is into the exchange life, is it not?

Notice all this wrapped up in this verse. Thomas, faith, seed, which is mentioned previously, which is Jesus Christ in this verse, and those who believe, it's all wrapped up into one. And this really answers the issue of the law not having any bearing in terms of who is righteous. It's those who believe. And the belief is in the crucified and risen son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Might be given. What's your thoughts here? Errors, passive, subjunctive. That means we are the recipient. And this happens at one point in time with continuous potential implications. First or third class conditional. Go back to the verse. But the scripture has confined all of us said that the promise by faith might be given to those who believe. First, first, second, first or third class conditional? I'd say third. Okay.

Everybody agree? Yes. So what's the condition Andrew? It's contingent on believing, right? Correct. Right. Yeah. Okay. But you could say that Those who believe, it's really expected that they would believe. So anyway, you could think that that could be a stretch for a first-class condition. But I agree. I think it's third class. I tried to drill down on this with multiple commentators, and nobody would take that on. So I presume it's obvious that it must be third, I think.

All right. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law. Now think about the previous verse where, in fact, we're confined, right? So we, meaning everyone, was kept under guard by the law. That's what scripture implied. And we're kept for the faith which would afterwards be revealed.

And again, remember the two operational principles of sinners being legally bound in jail. and ultimately we as believers are free and now live a life that's declared to be righteous by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. But before faith came, we were kept, notice that, imperfect, you know, with lasting, you know, accomplishments or conclusions, passive indicative, we were kept under guard by the law. Now, again, NOMAS, First of all, here I think we could see this related to the Mosaic Law, but here I think we could really implicate any law system could be applicable here. We're all kept by our own legal systems that we ultimately can place on ourselves during this process of Christian growth and sacrification.

Is this fair that everyone's kind of put under this guard? Are we all jailed up by, is that fair? What would the liberal skeptic say about this? My mother would say life isn't fair. My mother would say life isn't fair. So, you know, that just kind of covers everything. Do we think of God as fair? Would you describe our Heavenly Father as fair? Is that a good descriptor? According to our estimate or his estimate? Well, We're humans, we are perpetuating this from our own capabilities. People are pretty fickle.

I think it's about fair, because truly, you think as a parent, life isn't fair, you want to teach your children that there are consequences for things that happen, or that things you do or whatever, and so life isn't always fair. Well, do you think the world system operates on a principle of fairness? Absolutely. They want everything to be fair. And what does fair mean? Yeah, without, you know, any... I want equality. Yeah. Go ahead, Heidi. I like where you're going with that. So fairness is based on whose interpretation, right? This is human interpretation.

This is not God. God is unchanging, righteous, and true. And who cares what we think, whether something's fair or not. God is just. I like that. I think so often we are too human in terms of evaluating things as fair or not fair. But scripturally, it's irrelevant. Fairness is not a choice. Man's fairness changes as the circumstances change. God's fairness never changes. It's the same every single time. I like what Peg said. isn't into being fair, he's into being just. I mean, and he is just because he's God. It's his ballgame. So it's just fairness doesn't enter into it.

But I think the common view, and I'll kind of cite that from one of my dearest friends and relatives, my brother, I've lived a good life. I've done a lot of good things. I don't really hate Christ. so that the fairness of God would make me present with him for eternity. He didn't say it in those words, but that was kind of the vibes. You need to remind your brother of the parable of the rich and young ruler.

Unfortunately, not any longer with us. But I think, again, fairness is world system stuff entirely. We don't think of the Lord as being fair or not fair. Well, Bob, that's one of the hardest things to communicate to people, that God is fair. Because from their perspective, they have all kinds of views. If things are going well, God is fair. If things are going bad, God is not fair. So they're very fickle. One day this way, one day that way. You're thinking of the murderer, Charlie Kirk. Is that fair? No, I know.

In a sense, God is fair. in the sense that he allows his fallen creatures to have a relationship with him through Christ. If it wasn't through Christ, there would be no relationship. So his fairness comes in the fact that he loved us so much, he sent his son to take care of that problem. But those are God's terms, not ours. I mean, our terms are ultimately, gee, if there's life after death, if I live a good life, I'm going to have life after death. That's fairness from the human perspective. And that's man's estimation. And he's disregarded God's estimation. In some ways, he's slapping God in the face because he was created by God. And he's saying, well, no, I don't like that idea.

I'm going to create my own idea. I created myself somehow. Craziness. You know, of all people, Paul Schur understood all that, didn't he? Being under guard. confinement and barrenness. He's the one writing about being under guard there, right? I got an interesting thought for us to consider.

So before faith came we were kept under guard by law. What faith? Did not Abraham demonstrate faith? Was Abraham under law? I'm asking a lot of hard questions here. This phrase, before faith came, I think that term faith is a key word in reference to the verse before, by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. So it's not talking about faith in general, it's talking about the faith of the promise of Christ.

Okay, we're going to drill down on that. Good, Bob. Thank you. Okay, and kept under is the idea of putting under lock and key. We've kind of applied that already, making the law as a jailer. And interestingly enough, under is not temporal in its significance. The idea is until. So the idea, it's a temporizing kind of thing. This is not a permanent outcome. It's temporizing that we're in jail if we're under law. So the idea that will end. And this temporizing condition of being placed as unrighteous in jail will end by the cross in terms of what's accomplished.

But you know, I think the epistle to the Hebrews reflects on this a little bit about what happened in the Old Testament days. Hebrews 11, 13, these all, all these individuals of the Old Testament, they all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off and embracing them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. What do you make of that verse? How much understanding did these stellars of the faith that were Old Testament, scripturally, you know, obviously described in some detail, some more than others, had a true view of what was going to be happening? Likely no details.

And we're told here they all died in faith. Well, faith They came before the law. Some of these were after the law, but most of them were before the law. And ultimately we have to believe that God is very simple and His very, you know, stringent requirements throughout scripture from Genesis all the way to the Revelation. So what is our response by faith? It's revealing what God has provided.

So in the book of Hebrews, these Old Testament saints, they put their faith in the Abrahamic Covenant. They may not have known the details, but they knew it was eternal, they knew it was forever, they knew it was unchangeable, and they put their faith in that. Is Joseph listed there? Sam, I remember, I look back at who all was listed, but Joseph was, you know, maybe one of the best examples, and that was after the Abrahamic time. All right, the faith which would have afterwards been revealed.

It's kind of interesting, notice it's the faith, which refers to verse 22, and of interest in the ILG, the is before the first faith and not the second. Maybe I mistakenly, yeah, I meant verse 23. There'd be verse 23. So the faith, which is in the verse, The faith is ultimately before the second use of the term faith. But if you go to the interlinear Greek, the faith, which is declaring the faith of the cross, the faith is the Lord Jesus Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.

That's what our faith is based on. It's before the first faith. Let's go back again. But before the faith came, and Bob alluded to that, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for faith, which would afterwards be revealed. And I think if we're going to put a lot of emphasis on the faith versus the general term faith, we need to rightly divide the word of truth. And here I think scripture, at least the New King James Version, doesn't show that.

Other versions have the faith. Before the first faith or not? Yes, NASB does. On the second one. Okay, so all versions are consistent. The faith is on the second, not the first. Where it's clear in the inner language that the faith is before the first. Which to me makes more sense. Hey, Bob? Yeah? Hey, yeah, Joseph is in the Hall of Fame there in Hebrews 11. Okay.

Verse 22, by faith, Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the children of Israel and gave orders concerning his bones. I just listed him because of one of the most outstanding examples of Old Testament faith. Okay, so Constable says Paul pictured Israel before the advent of Christ as a child. The coming of faith, verse 23, is synonymous with the coming of Christ in Paul's view of salvation history. So Israel's a child, again, legally declared sinful and behind bars, and that child needs to be trained and raised.

Hebrews 12, 2, and looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has set down the right hand of God. So there's the faith, the faith that we all are relating to in this particular text.

Excuse me. Yep. Hey, I'm David Wolfe, and I'm just kind of joining late, as you can tell. I've been wanting to join you for a while. I live in Ohio. But I became aware of you guys back on COVID, when COVID was going on, looking for things online, and I haven't really been in touch.

But I had a question to ask about this faith. Okay. So what again are you saying is the faith, the faith? The faith, I think, is the entire gospel account of Christ died for our sins and was risen to new heaps of life. That's our faith. The faith is in that particular element. Faith in general is a principle by which we believe something that God has revealed, which may go beyond the crucifixion and resurrection. But the faith, with an article before faith, relates to the cross.

OK, well, if I could suggest something because something that you, you know, I missed it. You guys went over glaciers 220 already. David, David, excuse me just a second. Could you speak up just a little bit? Yeah. OK, well, I wanted to suggest something because I think it could possibly be referring to glaciers 220.

Or it says that I live by faith of the Son of God, which I think it more accurately says I live by the faith of the Son of God. I don't know if you ever heard that. But that could mean then that this faith, the faith is the faith of Christ that he passed on to us. Because it's all about Christ. But had you heard that?

You know, I, I wish I had been part of the Glacians. Chapter two discussion, but are you familiar with that concept that it's the faith of the son of God? In Glacians 2 of the son of God versus what? But Galatians 2.20, that I live by faith in the Son of God is what the NIV says. But I've heard more accurately, it should say the faith of...

But Galatians 2.20, is that right?

Yeah. Okay, we're going to come to that. Well, I'm going to end today's lesson with that. So stick with me just for a few minutes. Actually, just a clarification. Bob's right. When we see the faith with the article, it's a faith, if you look in Jew, it's a faith that was once delivered by the apostles. The faith, typically throughout scripture, there's multiple places where it talks about the body of truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, the gospel, basically, gospel message. I kind of think that's what's in view here.

The Galatians 2.20 thing, maybe Bob will tell us more about that, but I think the faith typically is a body of truth about the Lord Jesus Christ. Yeah, Bob, I think the faith has reference to the last half of that verse 22.

Right, exactly. Yes, exactly. Yes, I agree. Exactly. For those who believe, right? Right. All right, let's keep going here. So let's turn to verse 24. We've got to close in the next few minutes. One of my favorite verses in Scripture, and I think I have a little more in-depth understanding of this verse by just preparing for today. What's therefore therefore?

Well, as Jay Verner would say, Macaulay says that notice the marginal note that translates tutor as child conductor. The word referred to a slave who is responsible for a child between the ages of six and 16. And one of his major functions was to see that the child got to school.

So how should we interpret this role then, and how might this role have been different for different pedagogues? These presumably are faithful slaves, which are described in the Greek literature and the Roman literature, whose task was to be more of a guardian than a teacher. So the idea of schoolmaster, which I loved in the King James, is not a good translation. Tutor is a better translation, but it's really not that accurate in terms of what I mean what Macaulay had said and I think the idea of these are guardians more so than educators.

Okay, so the idea that remember the temporary nature of the legal system placing sinners in jail would end. And that ultimately, this idea of these slaves, these faithful slaves who were tasked to ultimately raise children, is something that once they reached 18, presumably, they're adults and can be making their own decisions. And Patty reminds me of Jackson at age 16. I mean, he's getting to the place where he can really be accountable for his decision to be saved.

I think another good thing for Tudor would be a nanny. Okay. Which would include... Sure. taking the child to school, but it would also include taking care of everything in that child's life at home and everywhere else while the parents went off to work. That's very common today, is it not? Yeah.

Now, Heidi and I could never afford a nanny. Neither could we. Okay, so to bring us is not the original text, but onto it is. How else can we come to Christ? And we says, the law was therefore the guardian of Israel, keeping watch over those committed to its care, accompanying them with its commands and prohibitions. keeping them in a condition of dependence or obedience and restraint and continually revealing to them sin as a positive transgression. Kind of a, if you will, reminding them of the promise that they perhaps. So Israel as a nation was trapped in this legal position of being childlike and needing to be obedient to what the parent or the guardian or the nanny, Bob, was really saying to them. And I think, you know, that we might be justified by faith. So this whole thing, this whole kind of guardianship is ultimately leading to faith. And what about sanctification?

And, David, here's where I'm going to go to Galatians 2.20 and 21. Being crucified with Christ is something we all love as a verse. It's no longer I who live, where Christ lives in me in the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, okay, who loved me and gave himself for me. Verse 21, Margaret reminds me always, and I don't set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through law, then Christ died in vain.

You know, in a sense, that's why the resurrection is so critically important in our faith. In the absence of the resurrection, all scripture is vain. It's totally void. Without the resurrection, and that ultimately goes beyond our justification being made righteous, our life now is a new life in Christ Jesus. Any other comments or thoughts before we close? All right, Jim, would you close us in prayer, please? Father, thank you for the way you explain yourself. We're just grateful that you called us. We praise you in your name, Jesus' name, amen.