Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.89 → restored 4.46
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
This is the second of our short series of seminars on the Epistle to the Galatians. The series is not aimed at investigating every detail of the epistle. Its aim is to acquaint ourselves with the main arguments that Paul uses, so as to define clearly what the gospel is, and particularly for the benefit of people who have trusted the Savior, but recently been confused by erroneous teaching as to what the basis of the Christian gospel is.
So I have listed for you the arguments, twelve of them, that we find in this epistle. We shall not argue as to the precise number of the arguments, because in places one argument leads on immediately to another in the same paragraph. But it is a good thing as soldiers with rifle fire to know how many bullets they have in their round of ammunition, and to be able to distinguish one bullet from another, and how to use the arguments that Paul presents to us.
For in our evangelization, we shall need to know these arguments, especially in circumstances where people have been brought up in traditional religion, to think that it is by our faith in Christ, but our faith in Christ plus our own works that bring us salvation. So last time we looked at the first argument, the argument from apostolic authority. To be placed against all such arguments as would invest that ultimate authority in the church, or in some merely human head of the church.
Secondly, the argument from early church history, concerned with the question of how and from what source Paul got the gospel. And his argument is he did not get it from the church, nor from the other apostles. He got it by direct revelation of and from the risen Lord. It is relevant to our situation still, when very often we shall be told that it is the church who gave us the Bible.
That is nonsense, of course. When the Christians of Galatia received this letter, they weren't getting it from the church. It was signed by Paul himself and sent directly from Paul to these believers. And when they received it, they didn't have to go up to Jerusalem or elsewhere to some supreme authority to know whether this was the truth or not. And the same is true of all the other books in the New Testament. It is not the church that gave us those books.
It is the inspired apostles who gave their epistles and gospel records to the church. That is a very important thing to get hold of. It is not merely a theoretical detail. If you are faced with dear folks who are afraid to accept the gospel when you point it to them from scripture, and they're afraid to accept it because they've been indoctrinated in this notion that it is the church that gave us the gospel, the Bible, and therefore it is the church who must tell us what it means.
Then Paul's argument here becomes of exceedingly practical importance and benefit. Then came the argument from the experience of conversion. How did they first get the Holy Spirit? And the joy of salvation. Was it by their works that they attained it?
Well, self-evidently not with these Galatians. That experience first came to them when they heard the gospel preached and received by faith God's offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. If they began that way, then it is obviously false to suppose that now that gift of the Holy Spirit actually depended on both faith in Christ and their works.
Then, you noticed on the last occasion. From the argument, from the Galatians' own experience of conversion and salvation. Paul now passes to a succession of biblical texts, biblical verses, biblical statements.
The argument from experience is good, but of course people have all kinds of experiences. And therefore we must not fund our authority for the gospel simply on experience. That experience must be biblically based. So if someone says, but I got the Holy Spirit and the assurance of eternal life through faith in Christ, and therefore it was by faith. That's very good. But notice now Paul appealing to a number of scriptures that say that very thing.
We need not at this point go through them all again, as we did on our last occasion. But it is a good thing, gentlemen, if I may say it. It is a good thing to have them at our fingertips and to see them in their order. On what terms does God give the Holy Spirit, works or faith? Answer, Genesis 15:6.
And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Possible objection, but the term sons of Abraham can only apply to j- uh, apply to Jews, and we Galatians are Gentiles. Answer. In thee shall all the Gentiles be blessed. Gospel is equally applicable to Jews and to Gentiles. And the conclusion, therefore, so those who are of faith are blessed along with Abram, the man of faith.
Possible objection, but we Jews can merit that blessing, and so can other people, by keeping the law. And, uh, Paul's answer, no, you can't. For all those who take their stand on the works of the law are under a curse. Not just a wild response in the course of argument, but based on an actual scripture. Proof, Deuteronomy 27, verse 36. Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the law.
You may think that that is a s- a absurd objection, but I do remember in years gone by, it was after the flood of Noah, uh, but some years only. Eh, and uh, uh, we had the opportunity in Cambridge to go into what was the Corn Exchange during the week, but this was just after the war when food was scarce, and the city council put on doorstep sandwiches and mugs of coffee you could go and buy in, uh, in the, in this aforesaid place in order to get the people off the streets.
Do you see? And so we would stand up in a corner with a mic and sing and preach for half an hour, and then we would ourselves go around and buy doorstep sandwiches and mugs of coffee and go around the tables and say, how do, and how's your grandmother, and things like that, and get talking to the people, do you see? So I, uh, I accosted a, a group of, uh, otherwise respectable citizens, and they turned out to be from, uh, uh, the country near to us here, do you see? And of course they informed me that I was wrong in what we preached, you see, and that you did have to keep the law for salvation, uh, do you see?
Because they said they were, all of them, they said they were Catholics, and uh, I was wrong. So I said, well, I didn't know I was wrong. If they could show me, uh, uh, do you see, I was wrong and that Catholicism was right, I would, I'd join the Catholic Church, do you see? I said, but I don't have, I'm, I don't have your advantage, if that is so. I was not brought up a Catholic, you see, but at least I agree with this, that you accept the Bible, don't you, and I accept the Bible. They said, yeah, yes, I said, yeah, we do, you see. So I said, well, that, that, that, I, when I read here, you see, and it says we're saved by grace, grace and not by the works of the law.
Ah, they said you must, uh, keep the law to be saved. I said, how much of it have you kept? Ah. So they went over them. You know, I'm the Lord your God, you shall have no other God but me. Bridget, she said. We haven't got any other God but God, have we? No. So we kept that bit. Do you see? They went through all ten and discovered they kept the lot. Yeah, you laugh, but they were serious. Mm. That led to months of, uh, uh, small group Bible studies, that did. But you will meet some people like that, who imagine on the whole that they've kept the lot.
Do you see? And, uh, uh, uh, actually they don't, of course. But even if you could, notice Paul's answer. Even if you could and did, justification before God, according to scripture, is not achieved through works, but on an altogether different principle. The ju- oh, here we come, here comes the scripture, actual citation. The just shall live by faith. Mm-hmm. We'll see. Partial rejection?
Oh, but I have great faith. That if I do my best, I should be okay. But that is to understand, uh, misunderstand what is meant by faith in the phrase saved by faith. Here, faith is the opposite of works. Whereas the law is not of faith. What on earth do you mean? Well, here cites, uh, he cites another scripture, Leviticus eighteen five, the one who does these things shall live by them. Possible objection?
Oh, but I am saved by grace. You'll see, for Christ gives me the grace to do the works that merit the salvation. The credit, of course, is all his. He gives me the grace to do the work, but I must do the works, and it is upon those works that I must eventually depend for salvation. I've heard the argument not merely from Catholics and ordinary Protestants. I've heard it in slightly different form from Muslims. God's grace, we trust in God's grace to do the works, but of course upon the works will depend the salvation.
Paul's answer, Christ does not redeem us by helping us to keep the law. He redeemed us by bearing the curse of the law that we had broken. Why else was he crucified? How can you establish that? Well, scripture again, Deuteronomy twenty one three, cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree. And of course, our Lord was so hung upon a tree. It's only thus that the blessing of Abraham can come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
And so the, um, the, uh, argument based on a succession of scriptures. But now another argument based on sound legal practice.
Now we shall have to be very careful. Because... many Christians will tell you that we mustn't be, uh, legal. We must be very gracious, you see. Mm-hmm. And legalism is thought to be a bad thing. And so in one sense it is, isn't it? But there is another side to that question. And the salvation that God offers us is based on sound legal principles.
You will all have argued the case on that, of course, by preaching justification by faith. That is a legal term. And thank God our salvation is based on sound legal principle, that God may be just and the justifier of him that believes on Jesus. That is legal terminology. And our salvation is legally based so that we may pin our faith not merely to the love of God, but to the justice of God.
As the old hymn put it, you say, God will not, uh, uh, penalty twice demand, first at my bleeding shortest hand, and then again at mine. But it is not merely justification by faith for which Paul now argues. He proceeds to demonstrate that not only justification, if you will, at the, uh, context now, this is Galatians three, and note these dominant terms.
Verse fifteen. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men, though it be but a man's covenant. Verse seventeen: now this I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards does not disannul. Covenant then. One of the main topics. Look at verse, uh, uh, uh, the, uh, verse fourteen. That upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham.
That is God's promise in Genesis, that in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Verse fourteen then, that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, that we may receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Repeated at the end of verse uh seventeen and on into eighteen.
So let's read those two verses. Now this I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by God. The law which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more a promise. But God has granted it to Abraham by promise. So let's acquaint ourselves with those terms.
We often hear justification spoken of, and sanctification spoken of, and eternal life spoken of, and you will hear believers rightly praising God for all the blessings he has blessed us with, all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus. Not so often, at least in my hearing, but uh, one uh, one ear isn't very good anyway. Do you hear people thanking God for his covenant and for the inheritance? Mm-hmm. This is an integral part of the, uh, gospel message, of course.
Uh, you see... Uh, let's look down. To the subsequent statement, that they who do these things, this is five twenty one. He's been talking, he's talking about envyings, drunkenness, revelings, and such like, of the which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Notice this term, therefore, inheritance is a very, uh, basic gospel term. So then let's start at verse fifteen and go through the argument. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it had been c- when it hath been confirmed, no one makes it void or adds thereto.
If you have a legal covenant or contract, once it is signed, sealed, and settled, neither party to the covenant can arbitrarily change it. That is why, in Britain at any rate, there used to be a great fuss made about fixed term contracts.
Someone would want to invest thirty million pounds in some vast development in a city. They would get a builder to do it. They would sign a contract, and in those far off days, the contract would specify by what date it had to be finished. It was a fixed term contract, and if the builder didn't finish it on that date, there were penalties attached in the contract, and it often happened that the builder couldn't finish by that date.
I was listening, I put the radio on in the morning hours to help me wake up out of the pleasures of slumber into the realities of life, do you see? And they were talking about, uh, some government civil service department, DEFRA or something, that is supposed to dish out subsidies to farmers. And some years ago they installed a computer, alas. Well, it got behind the first year, and while they were seeking to make up the, um, uh, the deficits for the first year, they got worse behind with the second year.
And they promised to fix the old computers, and they haven't fixed them yet. And they are in an interminable muddle. Odd that the man in charge of it was being paid one hundred and fifteen thousand pounds a year and got bonuses for good practice. You'll see. So this is a problem with us still, of course. When you have a legally binding contract, neither side of the, the, of the thing can arbitrarily change it. Now the pro- covenant, in particular, that Paul is referring to, is, of course, the covenant made with Abraham, according to God's promises.
Let's actually see it in Genesis chapter fifteen. And the, uh, ceremony of the covenant making is told us. Then in verse eighteen. in that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land.
Here then is the covenant. It is sometimes very frequently argued that this was only the first stage of the covenant, and in chapter seventeen, God amplified that covenant by introducing the covenant of circumcision. And that the covenant of chapter fifteen and the covenant of chapter 17 are really one covenant. This is an argument often put forward by those who favor the Reformed doctrine.
It flies in the face of what Gen- Galatians is now saying, which is that once the covenant has been confirmed, no one can add anything to it. And Paul, in verse seventeen of chapter three of Galatians, makes this time observation. Now this I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by God.
The law which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards does not disannul it. By giving the covenant of the law at Sinai, God was not adding anything to the terms of the covenant given in chapter fifteen. That same principle applies to the covenant of circumcision given in Genesis seventeen.
For that second covenant was not given until years after the first covenant. As you will see from Genesis seventeen verse twenty five, which tells us that Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised.
And Genesis itself tells us. that the first covenant was made with Abraham, Genesis fifteen, before Abram took Hagar and fathered Ishmael. So the first covenant was made... so at least thirteen years before the second. Galatians is, with its careful legal language, points out, three fifteen, I speak after the manner of men, though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it had been confirmed, no one...
And now he mentions two things that no one is allowed to do. No one maketh it void by cancelling it. But no one adds thereto. If you object, but it was God who gave the covenant to, uh, Abraham, and therefore God had a right to add. The passage is pointing out to you that not even God added anything by giving the second, the covenant of the law at Sinai.
Paul says, no, God was not adding to, adding terms to his original covenant with Abraham. So therefore, let's read seventeen again. Now I s- this I say, a covenant. Confirmed beforehand by God, the law which came four hundred and thirty years after does not disannul so as to make the promise of none effect.
For when God made that covenant with Abraham, it was in the nature of a promise. I will give you this inheritance, to you and to your seed. If you therefore added another condition to it later on, it would make that promise of no effect. And Paul's particular argument is that the law is such that no man can keep it. If God had first made a covenant with Abram saying, I'll give you this inheritance and your seed, and gave it to him on the ground of his grace received by Abram solely by faith, then subsequently God added a condition that not even Abram could keep.
It will ruin the promise, of course. For if the inheritance, says verse eighteen, is of the law, it is no more of promise, but God has granted it to Abram by promise. So now we must stop over this legal term, promise. You see, in our ordinary life, you can have promises of all sorts of kinds. Mm-hmm. Notably, promises made at weddings, of course.
For better and for worse. I will cleave to thee and thee only. Wow. They're supposed to be unconditional, aren't they? Yes, there are unconditional promises. If mother says to her infant, I'm going to give you, I promise to give you an ice cream for tea, and leaves it thus, it's an unconditional promise. But Mother could also say in her wisdom, now Johnny, if you are good this afternoon, that's an enormous if, if you are good this afternoon, I will give you an ice cream for tea.
That is a conditional promise. Pray notice in this context what Paul is talking about. He's talking about an unconditional promise. That is, it doesn't have any conditions attached to it. So the inheritance is not of the law, for if the inheritance were of the law, and you had to keep the conditions of the law to inherit the inheritance, then it wouldn't be a promise.
For in this context, promise means unconditional promise. That God has granted it to Abraham by promise. Some barrister doubtless will come back at us, some theologian barrister will say, ah, but surely salvation is on the condition. What condition? Well, if you believe, of course. You repent and believe. Oh yes, of course they are. But the conditions, gentlemen, are not works.
Uh, when God offers us salvation, he allows you the choice. You can believe him and take it, or you can not believe and don't want it. Yes? Suppose one day, gentlemen, you get a letter from un- the hitherto unknown solicitor, and he says your great uncle, very rich uncle in America, has died.
All such ri- rich uncles come from America, of course, but, uh, has died and left you in his will, do you see? And you didn't even remember you had such an uncle. And then you feel, try to feel sorry that he's died, and then you rush down as soon as you can to the solicitor, you see, and he proceeds to read you the will. And, uh, marvelous. Leaves you his Cadillac. He leaves you preferential shares, uh, in some oil company, plus the oil wells, plus three or 4 s- um, uh, homes in the country, and of course up to date apartment in New York, and so forth and so on.
And the solicitor reads it out. I mean, that will cost you something. I'm not, not leading you astray here. But he reads this out, and you say to him, but then what conditions do I have to fulfill? So he reads it again, that'll cost you more, and, and says, no conditions whatsoever. He's just left it to you like that. So I can't believe it. I have no conditions to fulfill, and all this is mine? I can't believe it. All right, says the solicitor, don't believe it. You don't have to believe it. You can give it to me if you like. Yes, of course you have to believe it, but that's not a legal condition in the terms of the covenant.
It's just, as the preachers put it, the empty hand of faith. Taking it. Do you say, do we have to repent? To be saved? Of course you do. You say, well, that's a work, isn't it? Well, no, it isn't. You see, because consider what repentance means in this context of the gospel. It means agreeing with God that you cannot earn salvation. It ag- means agreeing with God to take salvation as an unearned, unearned, gratuitous, free gift.
If you insist, no, but I, I'm sure I have to earn this by this, that, and the other, then you haven't yet repented. Repentance means not only acknowledge I'm a guilty sinner, but that I have no claim on God, and if I'm going to be saved, I must take it as a free gift. As to the terms of the covenant, it is an unconditional promise. Third legal principle.
In everyday life, covenants can be of different kinds. One covenant can be a one-party covenant. Another kind of covenant is a two-party covenant. One example of a one-party covenant is a will.
In English, we use the legal term a testament, your last will and testament, testamentum. Where somebody makes a covenant of his own will. In that sense, it is not a contract. In our modern terminology. In Greek, Greek uses the term for will, which is diatheke, but applies it also to these covenants, such as you have in Genesis.
And hence we use the term covenant and not a will. The New Testament, gentlemen. You happy with the term? The, the New Testament. Glad of that, because the Greek for that is Diatheke. And the word Diatheke is the word being used here by Paul of these covenants. It is the treaty, a word used of making a treaty or a covenant.
Therefore, he uses it, uh, uh, to translate the Hebrew word berit. This covenant with Abraham, what kind of a covenant was it? A two-party covenant or a one-party covenant? It took the ancient form of making a covenant in which animals were taken, cut into pieces, and laid in two rows.
And then the person or persons who were binding themselves to keep the terms of the covenant and had terms to fulfill, they would walk between the pieces. That was the ceremony. If it was a two-party covenant and both parties had conditions to fulfill, such as if one or other broke them, the covenant would be ruined. If both parties had cov- uh, terms to fulfill, both fought through the pieces.
If only one party had conditions and terms to fulfill, only one party walked between the pieces. So when you're a foresaid rich uncle, in America, of course, uh, uh, uh, made his will in favor of you, you signed it? Well, of course not. He signed it. Oh yes, he had to get witnesses to the fact that he had signed it.
You didn't sign it. So in this ancient ceremony, here were the two rows of the animal sacrifice. The party that had conditions to fulfill walked between the pieces. On this occasion, who walked between the pieces? You better look at it with your eyes skinned, gentlemen. Your eternal blessings, your great inheritance depends on the terms of the covenant.
Who walked between the pieces? Well, God walked, of course. There came, do you see, verse seventeen, when the sun went down and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace and a flaming torch had passed between those pieces. Evidence of the presence of God. It was God walking between the pieces and guaranteeing that he would fulfill the promises. Where was Abram? Did he walk between the pieces? Well, no, of course he didn't. Happen to have been asleep, actually, it says.
And it was given to him, this, uh, he saw it in his sleep, presumably in a vision, but not even in his vision did he see himself walking between the pieces. It was a one-party covenant. With that, we come back to Paul's argument. Mm-hmm. Galatians three. Verse eighteen. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more a promise, but God has granted it to Abraham by promise.
But just in case you think that this is merely concerned with the Jews actually, and not with us Gentiles, let's look back to Paul's use of this same argument in Romans chapter four. And in this content- context, it's very, very clear that Paul is arguing the terms of our justification by faith.
Having established that in chapter three, uh verse twenty eight, it is our considered verdict that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. He then appeals to Old Testament scripture as the authority and quotes the case of Abraham... as a legal precedent. How was Abram justified? Chapter four, verse three, Abram believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.
But then he has to ask... about de- Da- then he asks about David, and the terms upon which David was forgiven, and comments therefore in verse eight of chapter four, blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, says Paul, or upon the uncircumcision? For what we are saying is that to Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned?
When he was in circumcision or uncircumcision? So let's get our history right and get the chronology right. When scripture says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness is your justification, was he already circumcised or not? For if he had already been circumcised, you might argue that he was then justified, but on the condition that, first of all, he was circumcised, and then he believed.
So Paul makes the point now historically, based on Genesis, his justification preceded his circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Historically, that is very important. And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision.
So that applies to us Gentiles then. Abraham, our father, who sets the pattern of our justification for those Gentiles which are uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe. You see? Verse twelve, and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision. Meaning... Abram is the faith of people like Paul himself.
He was circumcised as an infant. But now he no longer thinks that that circumcision contributed anything at all to his salvation. It contributed nothing. Paul's justification depends on faith, such faith as Abram showed when Abram was still uncircumcised. But now just look at verse thirteen. For not through the law was the promise to Abram or to his seed that he should inherit.
That he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void in the promise is made of none effect. But now we're not merely talking about justification, gentlemen, we are talking about inheritance. And this is Romans.
And Paul brings in this matter of the inheritance. In order to show that not only is justification by faith, but the inheritance is on the same terms and is by faith. And so he repeats it in Galatians three eighteen, for if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more a promise, but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. This is tough legal stuff, isn't it?
But what would you think of the chap whose aforesaid rich uncle died in America and left him in his will? And he went to the solicitor, and the solicitor said, you're a very fortunate man, you've been left in your uncle's will, you know. May I read to you what he's left? Oh yeah, carry on. My Cadillac, uh, uh, preferential shares, a million and a half of them in this oil company, and uh, and uh, uh, two uh, oil wells in in Texas, you see, and a country.
And the chap turned around and said, look here, solicitor, keep it simple, man. I don't want to know all about these details. I want just simple. You wouldn't, would you? You would say, solicitor, make it as complicated as you can and as detailed as you possibly can, wouldn't you? Would you say, I'm not here, come to see you this morning, solicitor, to go all through this rigmarole stuff? You wouldn't. You'd say, carry on reading if it takes to the afternoon and tomorrow. Carry on reading, old boy. Why do we want to keep it simple, gentlemen?
When God has a whole eternity of inheritance to give us. Oh, we keep the gospel simple. Oh yeah. Oh, simple so a child can understand its simple terms. Repentance and faith. Oh, that's lovely. Keep it simple. But when it comes to the blessings, don't keep them simple. Add on as much detail as scripture allows you. Yeah? What then is the law? Verse nineteen. And now we come to what is logically a, a, a, a, a second argument, but of course it is embedded in this argument about legal practice.
Paul is maintaining, therefore, that justification is not by the law, it is by faith. Paul is now arguing that not only justification, but the promises, the covenant, the inheritance, these are also by faith and on the same conditions, on the same condition. And of course, when he propounded that in a synagogue or amongst his Jewish friends, he very soon got a reaction.
You say salvation is not by the law? Yes. And the inheritance is not by the law? Yes, I'm saying that. Well, then what did God give the law for? You can't deny that God gave the law. Are you saying the law was all for nothing? Have you ever been accused of that? But God did write the law, didn't he? So you say, how can you say that salvation is by faith and not by the works of the law then?
So argument- Paul has argued, as you see, from the Old Testament and from the covenant with Abraham, that, uh, justification, the inheritance, the promises, the blessings are by faith and not by the works of the law. But if he's going to win this argument, he must now turn round and face the opposition. Who will say, what then, according to you, is the law? Surely God didn't give it for nothing. You must have the answer to that question as well. You better show that you believe in the law. And you better show why God gave the law.
And that God's giving of the law does not contradict the terms upon which God preached justification by faith to Abraham and to the rest of us. You can't be in a position to say, when you argue justification and the bre- promises of covenant are by grace, through faith, and not by the works of the law, and somebody turns around and says, well, what then is the law? Why did God give it? You mustn't be in the position, gentlemen, to say, well, I don't know why he gave it, so I don't bother because we're not under the law, you see. The hymn says it, you see.
You see. Not under the law. No, you must be able to come over to the positive side and say, yes, I can tell you what the law wa- was and what it was given for, and the purpose for which God gave it does not contradict the gospel of justification by faith. It is you that have misconceived the purpose that God had in giving the law. This is the purpose for which God gave the law. And when you see that purpose, you will see it does not contradict that basic covenant, justification by faith, and the inheritance and so forth.
It does not contradict the fact that God gave it to Abram on the ground of faith and not of works. Yeah? Paul is a master controversialist, you know. But then he'd done this kind of thing thousands of times in synagogues and in the marketplaces and with individuals. Try to notice, gentlemen, how logically and fairly and complete his argument is turning out to be.
But I grant you that these legal things can be vexing to the old gray matter. It's time we had a break and had some coffee to fortify ourselves for the rest.
