The Triumph of Grace
¡§Your Own Personal Alcatraz¡¨
July 2, 2000
This Morning¡¦s Text ¡V Galatians 3:15-25
¡§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. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ¡¥And to seeds¡¦, as referring to many, but rather to one, ¡¥And to your seed,¡¦ that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
¡§Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only: whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
¡§But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.¡¨
The old saying used to be, ¡§A man¡¦s word is his bond.¡¨ Sadly, times have changed, as people make and break commitments today with seemingly little hesitation. For God to do that, however, is unthinkable, and Paul uses the analogy of human contracts as he continues to answer here a question he posed in Galatians 3:2: ¡§Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?¡¨ Let¡¦s read about it in verses 15-25:
PRAYER
¡§Brothers¡¨, Paul addresses the Galatians, in a more conciliatory tone than he has previously employed. ¡§Think about this: when a covenant is enacted between 2 parties, it cannot be changed except by the consent of both parties!¡¨ Recent offer on a house was accepted, after negotiation, by the owner of the house; we signed a contract with certain stipulations. It would be ridiculous for me to think that I could come back to him at the time of the closing and say, ¡§you know, I know we agreed on such and such a price, but Karen and I have decided that we cannot really afford that, so we¡¦re going to pay $40, 000 for the house. Sign here.¡¨
Here¡¦s where this matters: God had made a unilateral covenant with Abraham some 430 years before the coming of the Law through Moses. You can read about those promises God made under the sidebar in your notes. The Judaizers were arguing that the Law superceded the promise of God to Abraham, in that this supplemental thing (law keeping) had to be added to faith for an individual to be saved. But Paul says, ¡§no!¡¨ Abraham received the promise of God by faith, and that was all there was to it. God had promised to bless Abraham and his descendants in certain ways, and for God then to turn around 430 years later and say, ¡§oh, didn¡¦t I tell you? You¡¦ve got to do all of these things in order to be saved. I¡¦ve added some things to the list of requirements. If you don¡¦t want to keep the rules, well, sorry, but I¡¦ve decided to change the rules of the game.¡¨ For God to try to pull something like this would be for God to go back on His Word, an unthinkable thing!
This leads us to our first point:
I. The Inferiority of the Law - :15-18
¡§the Law¡Kdoes not invalidate a covenant¡Kso as to nullify a promise.¡¨ - :17
The Law given through Moses is inferior to the promise given to Abraham.
The promise given by God to Abraham was ¡§I will!¡¨ The Law says, ¡§you shall!¡¨
Scot McKnight, in his commentary on Galatians, suggests that what Paul is trying to get the Galatians to do is to read the Bible through the eyes of Abraham rather than through the eyes of Moses (interpreted, of course, by the Pharisees and priests). We read the Word through the understanding that God has made promises to us, and that our response is the response of Abraham¡Xthe response of faith!
A. The Law had a Beginning.
:17 speaks of the Law being added 430 years after the promise. 430 years is the exact time period between God¡¦s final restatement of the promise to Jacob and the giving of the Law through Moses. This beginning was well after the promise had been given, in other words!
B. The Law had a Distinct but Limited Purpose.
Paul, in :19, anticipates the natural question: ¡§what then is the purpose of the Law?¡¨ We¡¦ll get to that in a few moments, but suffice it to say for now that there was a very valid purpose for the Law, but that it was limited in scope and in time, whereas the unilateral covenant which God makes with Abraham and his faith descendants (that¡¦s you and me, by the way) is permanent. And Paul says to us in :18 that if the Law affects the promise at all, it renders it null and void. There can be no amalgamation of Law with promise. Law and promise are mutually exclusive. Salvation can rest upon promise, received by faith, or upon Law, won by works, but it cannot rest upon both at the same time. Paul is clear: God has granted it to Abraham¡Xand to us, his faith descendants¡Xby means of a promise.
C. The Law had an Ending.
He talks about this over in :25; again, we¡¦ll get there in a few moments. Paul hints at it in :16, where he reads God¡¦s promises to Abraham as involving his Seed, referring to Christ. The covenant God made with Abraham centers on Christ¡Xand Christ came as the fulfillment of the Law.
The Promise Contrasted with the Law
Promise Law
Centers on: God Man
Abraham had nothing to do with it, as far as meriting God¡¦s promise to him. Read the chapter preceding Genesis 12, where God gives the promise. You won¡¦t find the great faith exploits of Abraham. God simply chose Abraham of His own free will to be the recipient of God¡¦s promise!
Depends on: God¡¦s Word Man¡¦s Efforts
God is the One Who makes the promise; it is dependent upon Him to fulfill it. The Law, on the other hand, places the onus squarely upon the shoulders of man. You do this, it says, and you don¡¦t do the other thing. And when you mess up, you do the following to set things right. You fulfill each regulation to the ¡§T¡¨.
Requires: Faith Perfect Obedience
We read in Genesis that ¡§Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto Him as righteousness.¡¨ Abraham simply took God at His Word¡Xand of course acted in accordance with it (this is not an ¡§easy believism¡¨ on the part of Abraham; remember the test of his faith on Mount Moriah as God told him to go and sacrifice Isaac! That¡¦s where the rubber met the road in Abraham¡¦s life as far as the reality of his faith was concerned.). What does the Law require? Perfect obedience! Not that the Jews ever believed that the Law demanded sinlessness; there was provision for them to right things with God when they sinned. But it did require of them that they make certain that they did all of those things to atone when they did fail God.
Scope: Universal National (Israel)
The Law was only given to the people of Israel; salvation by faith is available to all! One of the parts of the promise to Abraham (one which the Jews seemed to regularly and conveniently pass over!) was the promise that, through Abraham, all nations of the earth would be blessed. This would happen through the ¡§Seed¡¨ of Abraham, which Paul refers to in :16, which is Christ.
Summing up these verses, Paul has simply put forth the argument that the Law is inferior to the promise made to Abraham. These Judaizers, who insisted that salvation came through the mixture of the Law with faith, were holding up the Law and saying that it was at least on equal par with Christ, but Paul says, ¡§no, the promise of God was given first by God to Abraham. Abraham believed, and was accepted by God, along with his descendants, for over 400 years before the Law came into being. One does not need the Law in order to be right with God!¡¨
II. The Intent of the Law - :19-22
¡§added because of transgressions¡K¡¨ - :19
The obvious question then arises, ¡§Well, for what purpose was the Law given? What good is it?¡¨ Fair question! Paul answers, ¡§Because of transgressions¡¨. Literally, ¡§for the purpose of transgressions¡¨. But this language still doesn¡¦t satisfy us, for in what sense can this be taken? Let¡¦s deal with the easiest part first, the meaning of the word ¡§transgressions¡¨. Comes from two words which, when taken together, mean ¡§to step beyond¡¨ a fixed limit into forbidden territory. To go into that area which is marked, ¡§No Trespassing.¡¨ It speaks of the violation of a set of limitations placed upon someone. But what does it mean for Paul to say that the law was given ¡§because of transgressions¡¨? I think that there is clearly one sense in which this is true.
The Law demonstrates to us what sin really is¡Xa transgression of God¡¦s holy standard.
Sin, with the coming of the Law, is seen for what it really is: a violation of God¡¦s standard of holiness. The Law was given to demonstrate the fact that sin involves a trespass against God, that it is more than just a violation against others, or against ourselves. Romans 3:20 says, ¡§By the Law is the knowledge of sin.¡¨ Andrew Jukes said, ¡§Satan would have us to prove ourselves holy by the Law, which God gave to prove us sinners.¡¨ Unless we see what sin really is¡Xa transgression of God¡¦s holy standard¡Xwe will attempt to place value on our good deeds as a means of being right with God. This is happening today! In our society, we have jettisoned the idea of ¡§sin¡¨; nobody wants to talk about it anymore. We have invented whole fields of science, suggests P.J. O¡¦Rourke, to prove that nothing is anybody¡¦s fault anymore! So many of the social programs that have been tried and found terribly wanting over the last half-century in our society stem from a utopian dream of man¡¦s perfectibility which is totally divorced from an understanding of man¡¦s indwelling sin! Jesus taught the Law in order to show people their sin, not merely in the sense of failing to do the outward deeds of the Law, but in failing to keep its inward demands. That¡¦s why the Pharisees hated Him so much: He used their Law to condemn them, since they cared mainly about twisting the Law to justify their purposes. Jesus taught the Law, but He also clearly demonstrated grace¡Xand aren¡¦t you glad that, even though we all fall so far short of the demands of the Law, God is there to forgive anyway!
It also has the effect of provoking sin to a new intensity, making clear our inability to keep the Law. Like a ¡§Wet Paint¡¨ sign even has the effect of encouraging people to test it, so the Law even sometimes has the effect of provoking people to sin. Here, let me show you what I mean (truckstop video):
(AT THIS POINT, I SHOWED A VIDEO I HAD TAPED AT THIS LOCAL TRUCKSTOP, INTERVIEWING A WAITRESS)
„h ¡§America¡¦s Worst Apple Pie¡¨
There is not another truckstop in America where I have any particular interest in going in for the expressed purpose of eating the apple pie! But in the case of this particular truckstop, because I have been told that it is the worst, my curiosity is heightened, and I want to taste it for myself¡Xjust to see if it is as bad as advertised!
Let¡¦s look at it further. Paul seems to be indicating in another way the inferiority of the Law to the promise, when he speaks of the Law as having come through angels via a mediator, and then in verse 20, which may well be the most cryptic verse in the New Testament and which reportedly has been interpreted in 250-300 different ways by scholars, he seems again to be suggesting that, since the Law was mediated, but the Promise came directly from God to Abraham, the Law occupies an inferior position. Notice this as well: the temporary nature of the Law. Paul says, ¡§until the Seed should come.¡¨ The Law was given for a particular purpose for a particular time, but it points to the coming of Christ as its fulfillment.
It is not, as Paul makes plain in :21, that the Law and the promise are in conflict with one another; rather, they each perform a part in God¡¦s plan. The Law carries on a ministry of condemnation; the promise a ministry of salvation. There¡¦s no contradiction between my unconditional love for my children and the fact that I sometimes ¡§lay down the law¡¨. I lay it down; invariably, one of them breaks it. There is punishment for their infraction; I try to make certain that they know what they have done wrong. But my love for them transcends their obedience to the law I lay down¡Xand God¡¦s grace transcends our law-breaking as well.
We¡¦ve seen the inferiority of the Law to the promise; we¡¦ve seen that the intent of the Law is to demonstrate our transgression. Last, let¡¦s look at
III. Our Incarceration under the Law - :23-25
¡§The Scripture has shut up everyone under sin¡K¡¨ - :22
Paul begins verse 23 by saying, ¡§But before faith came¡K¡¨ Now, both the KJV and my trusty old NASB miss it a little bit here; if you have an NIV, you¡¦ve got a better translation, because the definite article is included: ¡§the faith¡¨. Paul is not saying that no faith existed, of course, prior to the coming of the Seed, Christ, nor is he saying that salvation was not by faith, for it always has been. What he is specifically referring to here is the faith in Jesus Christ specifically as exercised in this age of grace. We now exercise faith in salvation accomplished, looking back to the historical fact of Christ¡¦s sacrifice and bodily resurrection. The O.T. saints, such as Abraham, looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah that God had given.
Three Analogies
In verse 22, and again in verse 23, we hear Paul talk of how we are ¡§shut up¡¨ and held in ¡§custody¡¨ by the Law. I really like the NIV here, for it speaks of how we are ¡§prisoners of sin¡¨ (:22) and how we were ¡§held prisoners by the law, locked up until (this) faith (in Christ) should be revealed.¡¨ An analogy serves us well here.
„h ¡§The Island of No Escape¡¨ ¡V No, I¡¦m not talking about Gilligan¡¦s Island, but the one they call ¡§The Rock¡¨: Alcatraz! A military prison and then a federal penitentiary from 1934-1963, Alcatraz was home to some of the most notorious and hardcore of convicts, men like Machine Gun Kelly, Al Capone, and Robert Stroud, who you¡¦d recognize as the ¡§Birdman of Alcatraz¡¨. 1 mile off San Francisco¡¦s shore and reachable only by boat, it was said that Alcatraz was 100% escape-proof. During the thirty years it was a federal facility, 34 men in 14 different attempts tried to escape from the Rock. 23 of them were caught; 6 were shot and killed; 5 were declared missing and presumed drowned. Clint Eastwood made a film about the 1962 escape attempt of Frank Morris and the brothers Anglin. While the film leaves one with the suggestion that Eastwood¡¦s character was successful in his attempt, the fact is that that is unsubstantiated. We do not know that anyone ever escaped from the U.S. Penitentiary at Alcatraz!
According to Paul, the Law serves as our own personal Alcatraz: it locks us up with no hope of escape! It is not given to bring life; he makes that point in :21. Rather, the Law demonstrates that we are imprisoned, and rightly so, because of our transgression of God¡¦s holy Law, and we are desperately in need of Christ.
The Law acts as a warden to imprison us as to any hope of salvation apart from Christ.
Paul uses a second analogy, that of a ¡§tutor¡¨ in :24-25. KJV renders it ¡§schoolmaster¡¨; actually there is a better way to translate the word than either of these, but we don¡¦t have an exact equivalent in the English language, so I¡¦ll use an analogy from one of my favorite films of all time¡XThe Sound of Music. They don¡¦t make ¡¥em like that anymore, do they? Now they parade every perversity imaginable before us and call it ¡§entertainment¡¨. But in that epic film, Julie Andrews played Maria, the governess, who took care of the Von Trapp children. In ancient Greek and Roman society, a slave would do much the same for young boys aged 6-16, though most of the time these slaves, who cared little for the boys, were harsh in their treatment of the children. So an approximate parallel to Paul¡¦s words here might be
„h ¡§Maria¡Kwith an Attitude¡¨
The Law serves this purpose until the time of the coming of the Promised Seed: Christ!
With the coming of Christ, there is no longer the need for the externals and rituals to act as our guides or our disciplinarians; we now are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, and our standard is to act in accordance with the inner prompting of the Holy Spirit. The legalistic approach to God, where we do certain things outwardly with hope of winning His favor, is not the approach that Christ teaches; rather, His is a desire to cause us to serve God from the inside out, with hearts that delight in the work of God on the inside which will produce difference on the outside!
We are now lead to justification by faith in Christ¡Xand we are no longer under this governess, this ¡§Maria with an attitude¡¨. What shall we say, then, regarding the Law? An analogy which I borrow, not from Paul, but from commentator Scot McKnight, is the analogy of
„h ¡§The ole Bell & Howell¡¨
I well remember pulling out the old Bell and Howell upon which to type reports for school. I remember using, first, the little eraser with the brush on the end, then correction tape to correct mistakes, and then later ¡§White Out¡¨. I remember how the keys sometimes stuck, and how there was, of course, only one font (and a generally ugly one at that!). I remember how, instead of hitting the ¡§enter¡¨ button as we do now, you reached up and moved the carriage back at the end of a sentence by hand. I remember the little bell that would ring to remind you to do that, and if you somehow were distracted and missed the sound of the little bell, you had a mess on your hands. I remember the hassle of changing the ribbon. I remember the unevenness of the letters on the page. I¡¦m also reminded that there are people listening to this sermon today who have no idea what I¡¦m talking about¡Xand there are others who can remember the pre-evolution of the typewriter back much further than I can!
McKnight likens the role of the Law in history to the role typewriters have played in the development of word processing. The technology of the typewriter was eventually developed into an electronic, faster, and more complex computer that does word processing. But I remember that I am still using that old manual typewriter¡¦s technology¡Xthe keyboard which arranges the letters in a funny way, the shift buttons, and all of those things. Now, my keyboard has some new buttons on it¡Xincluding one I discovered yesterday called ¡§TURBO¡¨¡XI¡¦m afraid to hit that button!
Everything that that ole Bell and Howell wanted to be when it grew up is now found in the computer; everything the Law wanted to be when it was young¡Xas revealed to Moses¡Xis found now in Christ and in life in the Spirit. When a Christian lives in the Spirit and under Christ, that Christian is not living contrary to the Law but is living in transcendence of the Law! So now to go back to living merely under the Law would be sub-Christian.
When the computer age got here, we put away the old Bell & Howell. Oh, I imagine Mom and Dad still have it around somewhere¡Xbut now my Dad has his nice 300 Mhz computer, and I doubt he very often longs for the ¡§good old days¡¨! Paul¡¦s critique of the Judaizers is that they are pulling out the old Bell & Howells when the Pentium III is on the desk! ¡§Now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the Law¡¨¡Xnot because the Law is contrary to the promises; rather, because the Law is fulfilled in Christ and the Spirit in a similar way as the old Bell & Howell is fulfilled in the modern computer. And I am very thankful¡Xfor both!
The Law is now not binding upon us any longer; we are ¡§in Christ¡¨ rather than ¡§under Law.¡¨
What does this mean for my living? If I am seeking to do the will of God, I do not turn first to the Law of Moses, but to the teachings of Christ and to the Spirit of God Who lives within me. He will never lead me astray!
