Why then the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the seed came to whom the promise was made, ordained through angels in [the] hand of a mediator.
God's promise to Abraham came 430 years before the law at Sinai, and nothing later can cancel it. So why did God give the law at all?
Everything turns on one word: "added." It tells us what the law was not.
First, it was added. It was not an afterthought. It was not in any way a completion of what was already perfect and confirmed. It was a new and particular requirement, proposed by the Promiser according to the counsel of His wisdom, for a purpose not yet made known. And the people took it on themselves willingly. In its terms it stood apart from the covenant of promise, and against it. God brought it in at its appointed time to show Israel their true condition in the sight of Him who had chosen them as the seed of Abraham His friend.
Sin filled the world long before Sinai. So what changed when the law came?
God gave the law to Israel to bring their sinful state home to them. Sin is lawlessness, and it was filling the earth from the days of the fall. But the moment God gave the law, a clear line appeared. Anyone who stepped over that line became a definite transgressor. God could now charge a man's sin to him in a way not possible before. In Israel God meant to give definite proof of the fallen and sinful state men were in.
God drew that line so it would be felt. The aim was conviction, not information.
The law was added so that there might be transgressions. It was not added so that there might be sin, as we have already seen in Romans, where this same subject is treated. It was added so that there might be transgressions. Through them the consciences of men could be reached. Through them the sentence of death and condemnation could be really felt in their light and careless hearts.
That still leaves the question of what the law was never given to do.
It does not say, "the law entered so that we might get life, righteousness or sanctification by it," but quite the opposite. It was "because of transgressions," and "that the offense might abound." Where does Scripture say the law was given so that we might get life, righteousness or sanctification by it? Nowhere.
The verse sets an end date: "until the offspring should come." The law had a real role, but a fixed term.
Putting man under law was a temporary measure, though a completely righteous one. In itself it rested on principles of everlasting truth: human responsibility, and a perfect rule for it. But with a sinner — and man was a sinner — this principle could only bring a curse, and it was meant to. This was not God's final or lasting way. It was there to bring man's position clearly out, by raising the question of how righteousness is found or obtained.
That end date is a person.
Transgressions, once exposed and defined in this way, had to continue until the offspring came to whom the promises were made. At His appearing He would "finish the transgression" and "put an end to sin" (Daniel 9:24) for the true children of the covenant.
The way God delivered the law carries its own message. Compare it with the way the promise reached Abraham.
Giving the law through angels and a mediator shows the contrast with the promise. The promise was direct and immediate between God and man. No angels and no created go-between came between them. With the law, mediation by creatures stands out. This is the immense superiority of the promises compared with the law. Everything showed distance between God and the people. But in the promises, God comes, speaks, and works personally and in love.
The mediator was Moses. (This verse calls him an "intermediary.")
Moses received the law from God's hand and gave it into the hands of the people. He stood between God and man. To enjoy the blessing that came from the law, each of these two parties had to keep their part of the covenant. God is faithful, and He will keep His part. But even before Moses came down from Mount Sinai, the people had broken theirs. They made a golden calf.
- Added — the law came in beside the promise. It never completed the promise and never became a condition inside it.
- Transgressions — it drew a line. Crossing it made sin open disobedience, so conscience would feel the sentence of death.
- Not life — Scripture never says the law was given to supply life, righteousness or sanctification. It says the opposite.
- Until — its term ran only until the offspring came. God designed it to be temporary.
- Distance — angels and a go-between marked the gap. The promise came straight from God, and blessing still comes that way.
But a mediator is not of one, but God is one.
Paul has just said that the law was "put in place through angels by an intermediary" — older translations call that go-between a mediator. He now argues from the word itself: a go-between means two sides, while a promise has only one.
The mediator here is not Christ but Moses, and the whole point lies in what that office assumes.
Paul contrasts two principles: the law on one side, promise on the other. He does this to rescue the Galatians, and any other souls, from the dangerous error of mixing the two — an error unbelief is prone to make. The mediator he means is the legal one, Moses, not Christ. That office implies two parties: God demanding what is right, and sinful man completely unable to give it. It is wholly different with promise. Promise rests on the sole and unfailing faithfulness of God, Who cannot lie.
If blessing hangs on two parties, it hangs on the weaker of them.
Under the law you have God and man as the two contracting parties, and you have also a mediator between the two. Moses stood in that place between God and men, and what is the result? God's part was safe and sound, but man broke down. And so it was, is, and must be; and this not from any fault in the law, but from man's guilt and evil. The law is like a bridge that may be ever so strong, but rests at one end on no foundation. There can be only one outcome.
The people had a side to keep, and blessing hung on it.
Moses, the mediator, announced the terms of the law. Under those terms, blessing depended on obedience. The people accepted them at once, saying, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." But the promise to the Seed, Christ, depends on God alone, Who is One. In carrying out that promise He acts wholly from Himself.
Because promise has only one party, its outcome is certain, not just likely.
A covenant does not always assume two parties. In Galatians there is only one. A covenant means any terms on which God brings me into relationship with Himself. The argument in Galatians is: a mediator is not of one; but God is one. Angels ordained the law in the hand of a mediator, and if you have a mediator, you must have two parties. But here you have only one. So now all depends on the sovereignty of God only, and therefore it is infallible.
That is why the same words that humble a person are the words that secure him.
Grace gives the people no place whatever in the accomplishment of the blessing. God alone is the Blesser, and He will not give any of His glory to another. We are humbled to the depths, yet blessed beyond measure, because God has His true place. Nothing depends on the creature. There are no legal terms of agreement. There are no business deals in which man's ability counts. There are no angels to administer, and no mere sinful man as mediator. God has worked, and who shall stop His hand or bind Him with conditions?
The two arrangements also differ in how close God comes.
In promise there is only one party, and that is God. Here nothing can fail or break down. He must accomplish it all. When God spoke to Abraham about His promises, there was no distance. He spoke to him Himself, with no one in between. God spoke to him face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. What a contrast at the giving of the law! There distance comes in at once, boundaries are set, and Moses becomes mediator.
Saying that a promise needs no mediator does not sideline Christ.
Remember that the question here is not about Christ the Mediator, Who gave Himself a ransom for all. This is a question of promise alone, and a mediator has nothing to say to it.
Commentators differ in emphasis. Another writer sees Christ's mediation as the reverse of Moses' place:
Mediation, in real and true humanity, does not separate. In the person of the Son of God it brings together the parties whom the earlier mediator kept apart. God was and is in Christ. The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, was God, or He would not have had Himself to give.
- Two. The mediator here is Moses. That office needs two sides: God requiring what is right, and sinful man unable to give it.
- Broken. A bridge is only as good as its weaker end. God's side held; man's side gave way. The fault lay in man's guilt, not in the law.
- One. Promise has a single party, so its fulfilment rests on God's sovereignty alone and cannot fail.
- Near. One party means no distance. God spoke to Abraham face to face. The law set boundaries and put a man in between.
- Humbled. Grace leaves us no share in producing the blessing. That is why the blessing cannot be shaken.