Faith Preceded Law
Galatians 3:17-18 · Bob Eckel · May 30, 2010
Galatians (2010), No. 22
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/492624573565

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Today's kind of the introduction to a section that will take a few weeks to follow, and that's really the purpose of the law. But Roger set the stage for this nicely last week. I listened to his lesson yesterday as he was preparing for today. And I think today we're going to just focus in on a couple of verses. And I think this is an important biblical principle, is the concept and idea that the faith you know, concept really preceded that of the law, and the law in no way interfered with the promises that had been made to Abraham.

So let's kind of set the stage for the lesson today, which are verses 17 and 18, by going back to verse 10 and reading down through verse 18. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. but that no man is justified by the law on the side of God. It is evidence, for the just shall live by faith, and the law is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet it be confirmed, no man annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He did not say, and to seeds as of many, but as to one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Now today's verses. In this I say that the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law. which was 430 years after, cannot annul that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more a promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Now I don't know about you, verse 17 is one of the more difficult verses to read clearly and kind of accept it as it is.

So I'm going to kind of seed this conversation or this study today with three different translations. So we're going to start with my kind of usual one. I'm the J. Vernon McGee guy, the King James, and the King James is where I have comfort. I like the language. I like the intent usually, but it's not the best here, I think.

This translation says, in this I say that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot annul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise." Now law here in the King James and the New King James is not capitalized in either circumstance. We'll come back to that.

Just keep your thoughts about that here for a second. All right, now the interlinear Greek is probably the most kind of accurate, literal translation of the original language. And here we have something that looks like a word salad. But in general, the interlinear Greek does the best, I think, in literally interpreting the Greek text.

And this I say, a covenant having previously been ratified by God, the after 430 years having come into being law, does not annul. Okay? So as to abolish the promise. For if of law the inheritance, no more of promise, but the Abraham through promise has given God.

Now again, kind of word salad-ish, but in terms of the literal Word by word, phrase by phrase, translation, that probably is as close as it comes. So I'm going to go to the New American Standard Bible, which I think makes this a little bit more interpretable. And by the way, you can read, you know, lots of the Living Bible, etc., which probably is not the best overall. But here in the New American Standard it says, but what I am saying is this. That seems like a good way to start.

The law, capitalized, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God so as to nullify the promise. That's pretty straight, isn't it? That's really interpretable in common, everyday English. For if the inheritance is based on law, notice no article, small letter L. It is no longer based on a promise, but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. So what do you think about these two verses? Any thoughts about these various versions or should we continue and look at the New American Standard because we're going to understand what it says, which always doesn't make it the best.

All right, no comment, we're going to move on. All right, as usual, I've got a question for the class here. Yeah, I'll ask a question. Oh, Doug, okay. Each one of them says 430 years after. After what? You're jumping ahead here, Doug. Can you be patient? Roger even prepared me for this. Roger sent me a couple of words of wisdom from other people we respect and told me, pay attention to this, Echol, will you? So we're going to deal with this this morning. I think this is important in a way and not so important in another way, but we're going to spend probably five to ten minutes on this 430 years. I'm glad you're not, Doug, because when you look at the notes ahead of time you answer my questions correctly.

Okay, so it begins with what am I saying and that takes us back to Galatians 3.15.

Roger, read Galatians 3.15 for us, could you?

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations, even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified No one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. All right, so this kind of, if you will, is an appetizer or preface to what verses 17 and 18 deal with.

So what's a covenant, Stan? A covenant is an agreement. It could be considered a legal contract. There's been many books written that previously, far in previous time, before there was even writing and things of that nature so that you would have a written contract that it was the passing of blood. It could have been considered a covenant. In today's terms, actually, our last will and testament would be an example of a covenant. It's a covenant that is legally present and that ultimately impacts the court to follow the recommendations of the deceased, right?

Right, and if you want to go to a primary one, probably in scripture, which a lot of people refer to would be the ones between David and Jonathan, because they made this covenant even though Saul was still king. And Meshivahbeth, or however you pronounce that, which was Jonathan's son, was actually accepted into David's king castle because he was the son of Jonathan and because David and Jonathan had a covenant. you know, they had the families fit underneath this covenant as well.

Now, how many of us could have come up with that example? This is good, Stan. Okay, so that's the earthly covenant, that's man's covenant, right? So I think what Stan has done, he's begun the description, which is really represented in the original Greek too, in terms of the definition, theirs, lexicon, etc. a disposition, an arrangement of any sort, which one wishes to be valid. And in today's terms, you know, a last will and testament, in fact, is such a covenant between the deceased and his or her offspring or friends or relatives or whatever else.

OK. And I want to add, yeah, what I didn't say was it was extremely binding and it was very personal. And when you entered into this covenant, you had this very personal binding agreement that you both felt that you would protect the other person and you would follow this covenant under all circumstances and under all agreements. You would protect the other person, the other person would protect you.

All right. Does that exist? Do you think that Jonathan and David had a legal document to declare this as true? A typical covenant would be when my dad shook hands with somebody in the old days. How does that work in today's courtroom? Everything has to be contractual, doesn't it? It has to be documented, signed, sealed for approval. The other definition is it's a disposition or a contract and here we're dealing with a specific covenant and that was described in the verses rectified or ratified and granted by God.

Perfect passive participle. So what's perfect passive participle mean? Ongoing. It's a fact but it's ongoing. Okay. What about the passive nature of this? Well, in this case God made the covenant, and man just was part of it, but didn't do anything to... Amazing. Yeah.

Okay, so what's man's response to God's covenants? And there are many examples in scripture of the Noahic covenant, the Adamic covenant, and lots of covenants. This is the Abrahamic covenant, but what's the principle here in terms of man's response to a covenant given by God? Is this something that Abraham signed on the dotted line for, took it to his attorney, and Got the seal of approval? He believed. What's the response to a covenant given by God? Have faith. Very simple. Faith. Do we believe what God has said is true? And that's faith again described, right? Do we believe what God has revealed? That simple. All right, so we're going to look at a couple of examples here, and I put this down on your handout.

So we can look at this Abrahamic covenant in a number of different wardrobes. So in 1518, it says, on the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying to your descendants, I've given this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates. And it goes on to provide more detail.

In Genesis 17, 7-9 it says, I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you and their generations. Notice here for an everlasting covenant. Okay, now this is not the everlasting covenant that was the bond between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Heavenly Father. But nevertheless, the implications are that through Abraham's seed, this will be an everlasting covenant. Okay, so this everlasting covenant to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I'll give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you're a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. Then God said, no, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.

So that's It's not only the land, it's the descendancy that was part of the covenant. And then in Genesis 22, it says, Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven and said, By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, meaning responded by faith, right, and have not withheld your son, your only son, Blessing I will bless you and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because you have obeyed my voice and that obedience is by faith. Our obedience today, same principle. The obedience is to the faith. The obedience is not to any other thing but the faith that God has asked us to respond to Him by.

So the question to the class is here, why do you think the New King James Version says, by God in Christ, but this is omitted from the Interlinear Greek, the New American Standard Bible, and many other translations. In the King James, in verse 17, it says, and this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ. Why would that be added, whereas in the original Greek it is not? And I'm not defending it or refuting it. I'm simply saying the King James includes in Christ.

Tom, what do you think? And this is just to maintain the orientation that ultimately this is going to come under the control of Christ as part of the whole deal, even though it wasn't really there in the original text. So do you think that in part might relate to this everlasting nature of the covenant? I don't want to step forward. Okay. All right. What's some other reasons in context? Bob, specifically, what are you talking about?

Which statement? talking about the fact that in verse 17, if you turn to your own Bibles, no matter what translation you have, it says that this covenant was confirmed before God in Christ in the King James. And I'm asking maybe a reasonably unimportant question, but I think it's not unimportant because I think the nature of the covenant really does relate to in Christ, doesn't it? different manuscript. We're going to come back to the Septuagint versus the Hebrew version. That's in part where the 430 years issue has come up. Doug, we'll come back to that. Yeah, Margaret.

Well, and maybe it's referring also back to verse 13 where it says Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law and then it curses everyone that hangs on a tree, which of course would be Christ. Yeah, okay. So I think it's just referring and making sure that people understand that it's all about Christ. All right, how about verse 16? I like that even better. Let's look at 16. Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He didn't say, and to seeds as of many, but as to one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.

Right? So I think, you know, who's ever responsible for the King James or the New King James Version seems to need to want to add that to make sure that our interpretation is correct. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But the inner linear Greek doesn't have that, nor does the New American Standard. Yes, Dan?

One thought might be, and maybe this isn't it at all, but if you read in Colossians it talks about that all things were created for and through Christ. So, if you look at the material universe, I mean, it's Christ, because he's the one who created it at the direction of God.

So why would not a covenant that would be applicable to this particular situation not be confirmed by Christ. As Christians, Christ is everything, isn't he? Christianity is not the study of the Song of Solomon. It's part of our study, but if we can't reflect on every passage of the Lord in his written word to the Lord Jesus Christ, we're missing the boat here. I mean, in a sense, we're not dealing just with a prophecy of Christ to come and what he would do, but we're in fact, in fact, looking at a world created by him, for him, and by him. Yes, Dan?

And see, that's what concerns me, and I want to be personal here, because that's what concerns me about my sister. Because she believes in Christ. She believes in Jesus. She believes that he lived. She believes that he was a teacher. She believes that he was a prophet. But I don't think she believes that he was God.

And all things begin from there. Well I believe in Napoleon too. Yeah, exactly. That sounds so much like what Jimmy Dodd seemed to feel like when he was talking about the Good Samaritan on the Mickey Mouse I'm not glad you're here today. This is Shakespearean comic relief, if I've ever heard. This is good. Yes, Doug. In front, we got through that.

So you're saying, in this I said the covenant was confirmed before God in Christ. You're saying this is witnessed by Christ? I'm saying witnessed by God. Witnessed by God. In Christ, witnessed before God. Like in the front? I'm saying God witnessed it. It was in front of God, before God. I think it meant in God's presence. Yeah. Well, the before relates to the historic nature of the covenant, I think. This was before. This covenant occurred before. Before the law. By God, of God, in Christ.

And I think the in Christ is added unnecessarily according to the original translation. Anyway, just a point to remind the class, I think, of the fact that in Christ relates to everything we do and say and study. So this promise, this eternal covenant, which is stated in the Genesis passage, at least one of them, really relates to the promise of Abraham's seed, which is you and me, brother. I mean, all of us from the covenant forward that respond by faith in terms of what God revealed.

Okay, now, Doug, back to your question. This period of 430 years, and Raja, I decided not to include Hal's diagram only because I think Hal was incorrect on this one. Love you, brother. I mean, it's not a major issue, but just in terms of the timing, let's look at this in a little bit more detail.

It says in Exodus chapter 12, verses 40 and 41, that now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was 430 years, so the interval is correct, and it came to pass at the end of the 430 years on that very day, notice on the very day, God's pretty specific, on that very day, 430 years later, it came to pass that all of the armies of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt. So in verse 13 of chapter 15, he said to Abram, know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them 400 years. Ooh, 400, 430, keep that in mind. Because in Acts it says the same thing, but God spoke in this way, that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them 400 years. It means 30 years of grace somewhere. 30 years of grace somewhere. I hadn't thought of it that way, Tom. Does that mean that 30 years they were there, they were not being oppressed and at 400 they were because they got a new pharaoh, right?

So when Joseph went in, he went in upon, in the grace of whoever that pharaoh was, I think Ramses maybe, but, well, whoever. But then after the new pharaoh came in and they were put under oppression because they were multiplying so greatly that they became afraid of him. I think that's correct actually. The 430 and 400, 400 is stated twice in the Bible and the 430 is stated several times also.

We've got to reconcile these differences. The 30 years could have been a period of grace. after the entrance. I mean it clearly could have been. I don't think we can say strongly what that 30-year difference is all about. But let's go ahead. I've gone to a couple commentaries here and I think they're helpful. The People's New Testament, which is not something I'd hang my hat on, but I thought this was really useful.

According to Osher's chronology, the promise was made to Abraham in the year 1921 BC. Now keep in mind Osher's chronology has been questioned by many. Now then we could get into this discussion of the six-day creation, and I don't want to go back and revisit that at this time. But let's just say that the dates in the Bible by Usher are reasonably accurate.

1921 BC, and the law was given in Sinai in 1491 BC, the interval is exactly 430 years. Now here's where we get into versions. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is the one, according to the People's New Testament again, is the one usually followed by Christ and his apostles. And I think you could defend that to some extent.

So its translators, following the Hebrew copy before them, render Exodus 12.12 as the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelled in Egypt and the land of Canaan was 430 years.

However, in Exodus 12.12, go look at your versions, 430 years isn't there.

You can't go to Exodus 12.12 and, in my opinion, put 430 years in there. It's just not in the verse.

So the point here is simply, and this is, I bring this up for discussion perhaps, the point here is simply that the law was given many ages before the covenant with Abraham and the people's New Testament, so it doesn't make any difference. Are you comfortable with that? That this doesn't make any difference?

430, 400, 394. The Lord is very specific. Why would we kind of go, well, whatever he said, you know, at that point. But over here, we're going to say this is literal. All right. But I don't think you can do that. I think the Lord didn't create confusion. What do you think man creates the confusion?

All right, Margaret, so what do you do to the skeptic that comes to you? There are a few other technicalities in the Bible where dates don't exactly add up, and this is just one of many. I didn't go back and study those other examples because I don't want to study things that I can't answer adequately. But what's your answer to the skeptic who would point out 430, 400, Exodus 12, 12 being modified? I mean, what's that all about? Is that important? So is the Bible wrong, Doug? The Bible is not wrong, it's just our ability to reconcile these, what I would call, small differences, and God knows what he's about.

We have to also consider the different interpretations and different writings. We do not have the original written word. Are we challenged to go back and do everything we can historically to come up with evidence to say God is right or wrong? Well, okay, how much time have you been spending on this lately, Margaret? Not too much.

No, I mean, the thing is the foundations of the faith we accept by faith. These other things, I'm sure God knows exactly what's going on here. We trust him that these inaccuracies may in fact be our problem, not his. Sam? My answer to that would be Let me talk to my pastor, Vern Peterman, and I'll get back to you. While Vern has an opinion, it's actually going to be the one I'm going to share with you today, because I think Vern is right.

Let's go forward here a little bit. But there's perhaps another way to consider this interval, this confusion about the interval. And now I'm going to turn to the JFB commentary, which often is a little bit off, but I think here it's very helpful. It says on the day, and by the way, these dots I put in here, I'm just shortening the commentary just to make it clear and straightforward. On the day following the last repetition of the promise orally.

And you can go to Genesis 46, 1-6, which we'll not go to here now. This was at Beersheba. And by the way, Beersheba is where God communicated to Abraham. is where God communicated to Isaac. And this relates to God's communication with Jacob. So let's look at this. This last repetition of the promise at Beersheba, Israel passed into Egypt. So right after this, Israel leaves Egypt. It is from the end, not from the beginning, of the dispensation of promise. In other words, not when the covenant was given to Abraham.

But at the time where Jacob took the nation out of, remember that, you know, they were starving. There wasn't enough water or enough food. The Jewish nation was suffering because of the times. And remember, Joseph is calling his family to him in Egypt. He's invited them to come join him.

At the time they left Israel is the time we're in this 430 years existed between that exit and the law being counted. At Beersheba, dot dot dot, because Abraham, Isaac had preceded this relationship to God at Beersheba, Jacob received the promise of the blessing. for which God had called Abraham out of Ur, repeated now for the last time on the last night of his sojourn out of the land of promise. So in other words, the 430 is best dated by the exit of the nation of Israel out of the promised land into Egypt.

And that fits 430. And that's Burns' interpretation, Stan, and I think that's the best interpretation. So Hal in his diagram simply said the law was, or the covenant was given and here's the law 430 years later. And you know, I mean, I think he's approximately right. I mean, it's simply that I think if you really drill down and look at the facts, this is the best way to say 430 is correct.

Everybody okay with this? I mean, again, I don't think this is something that we need to get overly concerned about. But God and his word were always true. So we do our best to reconcile differences that come up, but when we're not perfect in our ability to do so, we accept by faith and move forward. So now, question of the class, what's the relationship between law, the law and the promise? Well, you don't have to answer all at once. Okay.

So it's this, again, this faith versus works principle, which is really the book of Galatians, isn't it? I mean, that's what we've been studying, we are studying today, we will be studying. This theme continues and continues, and it's all a principle called grace.

Anything that is short of our responding to God's command to us, if you want to view it as that, by anything other than faith, is works. Now again, as believers, this work of faith on our behalf is active. And so once we live by faith, there may be works to follow, but those works are not the focus. It's the faith that God's about doing his work in us to bring glory unto himself, right? Principle that we all understand, but our lives at times may not reflect that.

Galatians 5.4, you've become estranged from Christ. He's challenging this law promise deal here. You've been estranged from Christ. and you have attempted to be justified by law and you've fallen from grace. Again, oil and water. Law perfectly holy. No argument there at all. But this concept of living under one principle versus the other is not possible before God. I was going to say, you said what's different between law and promise. Well, the promise was actually of the seed and of the land and the law was a method of directing them toward Christ and to show them God's character.

And if you want to go to John, I don't have my right glasses on today, but if you go to John 5.39 it says, and this is a dissertation by Christ to the Pharisees, you diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. And he's talking about scriptures which would indicate the law. Good verses. Those are good verses. So Jesus is saying, you missed it. I'm the point of all this study. OK, good. I think Stan nicely pointed out additional verses.

We could support this with probably hundreds of verses, this refuting the principle of grace, work out by faith in our lives versus law and works. So the question that we're left with then, did the law then not have a purpose? Yeah, Tom. Purpose would be. to show that you can be the best possible humanly and still fall infinitely short of truly obeying all the law, whether in thought or word or action.

Somewhere along the line, it's just not going to over and says, not me Lord, but by facing your promise I am justified. So Randy's got the task the next two weeks of dealing with this with you, but Tom could you get your Bible open there, read Galatians 3 19 through 24 and we'll kind of, you up for that? Okay, Margaret, 19 through 24.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained by angels in the hand of the mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith. which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I love verse 24. Don't you just love verse 24? The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. I mean, when you get tired of yourself in the inadequacies of ourselves, Christ is the only answer, the intended answer from the very beginning. And Randy will dissect that in much more detail over the next two weeks. But the law had a purpose, and it was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

You know, the hungry heart is one who's come to the end of him or herself. You know, getting saved to begin with, the date I was saved was a date that I realized I couldn't do it on my own. But boy, that's just the beginning of understanding, isn't there? Because you get saved and from my own experience, I started trying to pay God back. I ultimately got to the point where I was being worn out.

Wasn't it fun? It was impossible to really create a work ethic and or a thought process that was totally glorifying to God. Again, legal principles come in to teach us how inadequate we are. And so again, this principle of the law being our schoolmaster is still operational in our lives. It shouldn't be, but it still very much is. And so I covet Randy a little bit being able to teach this section because it's not only the legal system as the Jew had seen it, but the law when there's no article before it is any kind of a legal system that we put before ourselves. It separates us from God's great grace.

Okay, everybody okay with that? Alright, now we're going to look at another section here in terms of God being true to his promises. Remember God, this covenant with Abraham was something that God had ratified and granted and according to God and who he is, ultimately he's not short on his promises. So Pat, could you read Hebrews 6, 13-18? These are very special verses in context as they relate to the passage we're studying today. Yes. Is that not correct? Yeah, I think that's correct. Hebrews 6, 13 through 18, I think.

It starts with, for when God made a promise to Abraham because he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely, blessing, I will bless you, and multiplying, I will multiply you. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the Creator, and an oath for confirmation is for them to the end of all disputes. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise, the imbutable of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. that by two immutable things which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation to have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. All right, so just to summarize, God's true to his promises, basically, and here we're dealing specifically with those made to Abraham. Basically, God cannot lie. Good bottom line for sure.

Now I'm going to raise this issue of in the new American standard, the claim is that this is the Mosaic Law. And I think if you look at the verse, in verse 17, you can, I think, understand in Galatians 3 that this could be the Mosaic Law. It's very consistent with the Mosaic Law.

But in fact, in the Interlinear Greek, there's no article here. And in verse 18, there's no article either. So how are we interpreting this? Is this narrowly interpreted as the Mosaic Law? which was, by the way, by dates, you know, it would seem that we're talking about the Mosaic Law, wouldn't it? And the New American Standard represents it as capitalized, therefore indicative of the Mosaic Law, but yet in the Greek, there's no article. So let's throw your thoughts on that. Article important or not important in terms of the Mosaic Law versus legal principles? about the Ten Commandments, we're talking about the entire legal standards of God.

613, correct? A lot. Yeah, okay. Any further conversation about that, Tom? He kind of pioneered that whole concept that we have faced ever since the 60s when we were getting car parts from auto parts shops. Comes as a unit, so you can't get into I don't know, my goodness gracious, I have to say. I'm glad truth to that. But Tom's right, it was. You couldn't piecemeal it. It's all a unit.

Alright, what about verse 18 then? Can we interpret verse 18 more broadly? So this issue, the only reason I bring this up is this article thing, I mean we fall back on that all the time, but in context this is the Mosaic system. Political, social, legal. Yeah. I think sometimes maybe the translators look to the context and they said, no definite article, but it's obviously deferred to the Mosaic Law, so be faithful to the context they made of the capital, and there's no definite article.

So they can, well like us, they can choose as we can choose. There's another aspect to this that maybe we're overlooking, and that is that men lived by a form of righteousness law and it was revealed by their faith in him. When you think of Melchizedek, what righteousness did this man have? This was well before the law was given. But he understood God in his thinking. He represented God.

I'm just thinking back in history that men have lived by faith as you so well have said Men have believed God under his administration going back to Adam and Eve. I think like Tom said about his example in the sixties, time is of the essence. Okay. Time is of the essence when anything happens.

So when was the mosaic law given? It was given at Sinai. It was given just prior to entering into Canaan. what was the problem with Canaan? They had filled their cup of sin, the way that they lived, their irreverence for one God, they didn't even recognize him, the polytheism, they had gross idolatry. This is an omniscient God that knows that he's taking a million or so people who have been under 400 years of oppression, who have not been allowed to think for themselves, He's going to run him into a country that has all these sin problems.

So, what is he doing with the law? To me, what he's doing, he's saying, be careful. I'm sending you into the land that I gave you, but it's full of problems. And if you follow my law, you will be blessed. If you don't, you're going to be cursed, because you're just like the people that I'm cursing now, and you're driving out of the land.

So timing is of essence here. That, to me, is what the Mosaic Law is all about. There's a kind of a socio-political reason for the Law. These people needed to get organized, right? We need some governments here to get these people, you know, understanding what's not right and what is right, right? But, you know, God's intention was to whip them into shape. And those who responded by faith ultimately still I think, had a right relationship to God.

Caleb and Joshua, who were blessed, because when they went in with the other ten spies, they came back trusting God. That was the key to Joshua, the book of Joshua. They had faith. They trusted God. The other people saw the bigness and the problems in the land, and how great the people were. They looked like grasshoppers. They didn't want any part of it, because they didn't have enough trust and faith that God was going to carry him through that land. They didn't hear God. They didn't promise.

In the book of Revelations, the Holy Spirit is still saying the same thing through Jesus. He who has an ear, let him hear. You've got to realize Moses is well informed with the Abrahamic Covenant. It's represented throughout the Pentateuch. And the Exodus passage today just reflects that again. Tom, you look poised. All right, let's continue then.

The inheritance, which comes up in 18, is going to be the subject of much of what we're going to be dealing with in Galatians 4 and 5. But it says here, for if the inheritance be of a law, It's no more a promise, but God gave it to Abraham as a promise. So, as I just said, there's a lot more to follow on this inheritance principle.

And I think just to represent that by one verse here, Galatians 4.7 says, therefore, you're no longer a slave, but a son. and of a son that an heir of God through Christ. And just to reflect back in Romans, it deals a lot with this being heirs or the inheritance that's before us. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect. So, I mean, this idea, you know, getting God's blessing by being heirs of the law really is a mistaken interpretation. The inheritance is by faith. And we all have that and can claim that by faith in terms of what God's promises are.

So the Greek term is chloronomia. And ultimately, here's Thayer's lexicon. I really like this in terms of the best translation of the Greek. His first of two definitions is The inheritance is the eternal blessedness in the consummated kingdom of God, which is to be expected after the visible return of Christ.

But secondly, and I think more importantly, the share which the individual will have in that eternal blessedness. So it's ultimately the consummated kingdom, and then going forward is how each of us relate to this eternal blessedness which God has promised each and every one of us.

And I think, even if you go back to the Psalms, we're reminded again of the covenant and God's promise to Abraham. Let's turn to Psalm 105, 6 through 12. And this, again, shows the unerring nature of God and his promises in terms of them being fulfilled. O ye seed of Abraham, the servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen, he is the Lord our God, his judgments are in all the earth. And he has remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which covenant he made with Abraham. and his oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance, when they were but a few men in number, yea, very few, and sojourners in it. So again, this kind of summarily just repeats the covenant, reflects that promise made to Abraham was sustained to Isaac, his son, and to his grandson, Jacob. And again, the 430 years, I think, best fits when Jacob left Israel to move into Europe.

So as believers, why should we ever be entangled with the law? Should be a question mark after that. I mean, there's just no reason. And the question for each one of us, what promises are you resting upon? I mean, is this just in the eternal presence that we have with the Lord, or are these promises good for the next 10 minutes? What promises is God making to us today that we can rely on?

What's that? John 3.16 is the primary one as far as that's concerned.

John 3.16 is, I think, a good one. Yes, Tom?

All the promises in the Bible that relate to unconditional grace from God by faith. Okay. I was going to say, all the promises are wrapped up in Christ. Every promise, you know, it's like we had the study of several years ago about the the 30 riches of God's grace and they all point back to Christ and something He's accomplished on our behalf that we recipients of. What other promises individually do you link to? I mean the promise of life eternal is a good one to begin with.

That's simple. We're blessed with all spiritual blessings. Heavenly places. We're promised the Holy Spirit which is probably one of the greater things to be empowered with. And we're also promised that, you know, once we're saved, we're always His. He never... never leaves us forsaken. Lack of fear of losing your salvation, Tom? And those particular unconditional promises that God fulfilled in Christ, we are all the more strengthened in laying hold of those promises, saying, see, it's there, and it's already in operation, and I'm going to keep on believing.

It comes to my mind that the law was given and we were kept under it in the context here as a world until Christ. And when Christ came, we were delivered through Christ to see the Father. And that no longer do we have a pedagogue, a teacher, we have our Father. is that family relationship.

Let me mention just a couple that came to my mind. I think one of the great promises is there's therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ. What a tremendous pillow that is for a tired head. And secondly, one of his great promises is he's in the business through trials and tribulations of conforming us to the image of his Son.

We think we're all clay continually being molded into the image of the Lord Jesus Christ through these experiences we traverse day in and day out. That's a promise that, boy, it can't defeat you. Knowing there's no condemnation and we're being taken through the paths of life to be conformed to the image of the Son is an act of grace. And our response by faith is a promise that we can't shortchange. Our earthly experience is entirely to be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not something we work on. It's something we receive by faith and trust God to accomplish it. It's in it. Right?

Let's close with prayer. Doug, would you close us in prayer, please? Our gracious Heavenly Father, again we come before your throne with our thanksgiving, our petitions. We thank you now that we have your word, that we can study and learn more about you. We thank you for our Bob and leading the lesson promises are guaranteed. We have covenants. You've given us covenants. We're guaranteed as we accept your Son as our Savior. We thank you for those promises.