‘What then is the Law? It was added because of transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made, ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one.'
What was then the nature of the Law? It was a temporary measure, put in place to control sin until the promised Seed should come, who would bring God's promised blessing to the world. Indeed it must be seen as inferior because intermediaries were involved. The Law came through angels (this is what the Judaisers taught), to Moses and the people, whereas Abraham received his promise directly from the one God. So the latter is a pure, irrevocable promise from God, while the former is a transaction carried out through intermediaries, which demonstrates its inferiority.
‘What then is the Law?' That is, what is its nature and purpose?
‘It was added because of transgressions.' There were of course customs and traditions that determined the behaviour of members of the tribe in the days of the patriarchs. But God had decided that because of man's weakness and failure, and because of his disobedience and rebellion, and in order that He and they might have a standard by which men could be judged, and in order to give guidance to judges in that judgment, this had to be put into legal form as a direct command from God. This then removed any argument and gave the laws absolute authority.
For whereas in a family tribal situation (as in a family) the patriarch represented absolute authority, and could be appealed to personally, and could give his guidance personally, in a nation composed of a number of tribes (which also included a large number of foreign components - Exodus 12:38) it was different. This absolute authority had to be established by other means. Thus the Law was given, laying out and declaring how men should behave, and providing a standard against which they could be judged, so as to control transgression and reveal it for what it was.
So the Law had a number of effects because of what men were, and ‘because of transgressions' can be seen from these different aspects.
· Firstly it can be seen as given to restrain transgressions. That is one main purpose of Law. All law has a restraining effect, seeking to persuade men not to sin. That is also indeed one function of a childminder (Galatians 3:23-25). So God wanted the Law to control men's behaviour.
· Secondly it can be seen as given in order to reveal transgressions. Here the thought is that it makes clear to all that something is wrong and sinful. This was certainly one of Paul's views of it. It results in man being guilty before God (compare Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:13; Romans 7:7).
· Thirdly it can sadly result in provoking transgressions. This was another of Paul's views of it, closely allied with the previous one (Romans 7:5; Romans 7:8). It was not given in order to provoke men to disobedience, but because of their perverse nature, there is nothing that more provokes men to disobey, than the injunction ‘you shall not --'. For they ask themselves, ‘why shouldn't I?' Thus it again reveals their sinfulness in a different way. It makes them ‘exceeding sinful' (Romans 7:13) and thus reveals to them how needy they were
· But there is also one thing more that the Law does. It results in men being cursed by God. For as men transgressed that Law they became liable to the curse of God (Deuteronomy 27:26 compare Jeremiah 11:3). And the Law then also provided ways by which the curse could be diverted, by sacrifices, by washings, by observance of feasts and feast days and so on. But these could only be temporary. They could only delay sentence. For they could not take away sins (Romans 3:25).
‘Until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.' But these stipulations only applied until the One Who was promised came, the One Who would bear the curse on Himself (Galatians 3:13). They were temporary until a greater Authority arrived. One Who could say, ‘But I say to you' (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44) and introduce a better Torah (‘Instruction'), a better Law. Then they would cease to apply. For now those who believed in Him would no longer be guilty before God. And they would have an Example to follow. And what was more they would have One Who lived within them. They would not longer need the Law.
‘Ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator.' The Jews believed that the Law was mediated through angels (Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53). While God Himself declared the covenant which included the ten commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), the whole Law was seen as mediated through angels. These were seen as having acted as the mediator between God and men. Now, says Paul, where there is a mediator a covenant is transacted by three parties, the two participants and the mediator. But the promise to Abraham was not mediated in this way, nor did he have any direct part in it. It came directly from God. Thus it was more immediate.
‘Now a mediator is not of one, but God is One.' Where there is a mediator to a covenant more than one party must be involved. That is why mediation takes place. Thus there are three parties connected with such a covenant, any one of whom may seek to introduce changes. And this indeed was what the Rabbis did (although they did not see it in that way) as they expounded the Law and laid down their differing determinations of its meaning. They were acting as mediators. That was true also of the covenant of Sinai and the giving of the Law. They were mediated through angels. But in the case of the promises to Abraham there was no mediator. It was like a will, or an irrevocable settlement. God said, and it was done. Only God was involved, and God is One. So that covenant with Abraham was a purely divine transaction, totally unalterable and irrevocable, and thus far superior to any other. For God is the unchanging God (Malachi 3:6), the One in Whom is no variableness, nor shadow resulting from His moving His position (James 1:17). He does not alter in what He has promised.