Gal 3:19-20 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 19. Wherefore then serveth the law ? This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the Divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing, and is the law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator. It was added , προσετεθη. It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement, on the part of God, for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that. Because of transgressions . On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter men from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince men of it, and thus to be "ancillary" to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the law of God as given to apostate man, arid this use of the law still exists. This effect of the law is accomplished (1) by showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong. (2.) It shows us the nature and extent of transgression, by showing us how far we have departed from it. (3.) It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus fitted to reveal its true nature. (4.) It is fitted to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is. ; , also . (5.) It thus shows its own inability to justify and save men, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead men to the cross of the Redeemer. . At the same time, (6.) the law was given with reference to transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties. When Paul says that the law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes, ( Calvin ,) but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows men their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which men must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of men. Till the seed should come , etc. The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. See . It is not implied here that the law would be of no use after that, but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should comic, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing men the nature of transgression, and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete, and in many respects unintelligible, until he came--as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save men, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying men, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven. And it was ordained by angels . That is, the law was ordained by angels. The word ordained, here, διαταγεις, usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here, that the law was ordained by angels, . The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. Comp. . The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man. In the Septuagint there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is, "From his right hand went a fiery law for them." The Seventy render this, "His angels with him on his right hand." Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels, . The Hebrew is, "Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came [literally] with ten thousands of holiness;" that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads, By the holy myriads here mentioned, what can be meant but the angels ? The word "holy," in the Scriptures, is not given to storms, and winds, and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings. The same sentiment is found in : "The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary." Does not this evidently imply, that when he gave the law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? See Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565--567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world , that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man. In the hand . That is, under the direction or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels, or by their disposition, it was under the control of a mediator. Rosenmuller, however, and others, suppose that this means simply by , ( per ;); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the mediator, here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation, however, will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word mediator. Of a mediator . The word mediator μεσιτου means, properly, one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius , or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man, . There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson, ( Lex .,) Chandler, and many others, suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should be regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are, (1.) that the name mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures. (2.) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament. (3.) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle's reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him, until he, the "promised seed," should come. (4.) It is only by such an interpretation that the following "vexed" verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible. These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For (1) it was given hundreds of years after the promise. (2.) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise. (3.) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that This should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary, to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing, that the law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption. (*) "serveth" "To what purpose then was" (c) "It was" (d) "seed" (a) "by angels" (b) "a mediator"

Galatians 3:19-20

Verse 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? This is obviously an objection which might be urged to the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of what use was the law? Why was it given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the Divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to be regarded as nothing, and is the law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator.

It was added, προσετεθη. It was appended to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an additional arrangement, on the part of God, for great and important purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving of the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be introduced, and was with reference to that.

Because of transgressions. On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The meaning is, that the law was given to show the true nature of transgressions, or to show what was sin. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the true nature of sin; to deter men from committing it; to declare its penalty; to convince men of it, and thus to be "ancillary" to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption through the Redeemer. This is the true account of the law of God as given to apostate man, arid this use of the law still exists. This effect of the law is accomplished

(1) by showing us what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule of what is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.

(2.) It shows us the nature and extent of transgression, by showing us how far we have departed from it.

(3.) It shows what is the just penalty of transgression, and is thus fitted to reveal its true nature.

(4.) It is fitted to produce conviction for sin, and thus shows how evil and bitter a thing transgression is. Rom 4:15; Rom 7:7, also Rom 7:8-11.

(5.) It thus shows its own inability to justify and save men, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead men to the cross of the Redeemer. Gal 3:24. At the same time,

(6.) the law was given with reference to transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and by the fear of its threatened penalties. When Paul says that the law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose that this was the sole use of the law; but that this was a main or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important purposes, (Calvin,) but this is one leading design. And this design it still accomplishes. It shows men their duty. It reminds them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It shows them that justification by the law is impossible, and that there must be some other way by which men must be saved. And since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance that that law should be still proclaimed, and that its high demands and its penalties should be constantly held up to the view of men.

Till the seed should come, etc. The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. See Gal 3:16. It is not implied here that the law would be of no use after that, but that it would accomplish important purposes before that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should comic, and then they would give way to the more important institutions of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish valuable objects after his advent, in showing men the nature of transgression, and leading them to the cross of Christ. The essential idea of Paul here is, that the whole arrangement of the Mosaic economy, including all his laws, was with reference to the Messiah. It was a part of a great and glorious whole. It was not an independent thing. It did not stand by itself. It was incomplete, and in many respects unintelligible, until he came--as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the other is found. In itself it did not justify or save men, but it served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It contained no provisions for justifying men, but it was in the design of God an essential part of a system by which they could be saved. It was not a whole in itself, but it was a part of a glorious whole, and led to the completion and fulfillment of the entire scheme by which the race could be justified and brought to heaven.

And it was ordained by angels. That is, the law was ordained by angels. The word ordained, here, διαταγεις, usually means to arrange; to dispose in order; and is commonly used with reference to the marshalling of an army. In regard to the sentiment here, that the law was ordained by angels, Acts 7:13. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. Comp. Heb 2:2. The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, certainly, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man. In the Septuagint De 33:2 there is an allusion of the same kind. The Hebrew is, "From his right hand went a fiery law for them." The Seventy render this, "His angels with him on his right hand." Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 5, 3. That angels were present at the giving of the law is more than implied, it is believed, in two passages of the Old Testament. The one is that which is referred to above, and a part of which the translators of the Septuagint expressly apply to angels, De 33:2. The Hebrew is, "Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came [literally] with ten thousands of holiness;" that is, with his holy ten thousands, or with his holy myriads, By the holy myriads here mentioned, what can be meant but the angels? The word "holy," in the Scriptures, is not given to storms, and winds, and tempests; and the natural interpretation is, that he was attended with vast hosts of intelligent beings. The same sentiment is found in Ps 68:17: "The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated; the Lord is in the midst of them, as in Sinai, as in his sanctuary." Does not this evidently imply, that when he gave the law on Mount Sinai he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? See Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus viii. pp. 565--567. It may be added, that in the fact itself there is no improbability. What is more natural than to suppose that when the law of God was promulgated in such a solemn manner on Mount Sinai to a world, that the angels should be present? If any occasion on earth has ever occurred where their presence was allowable and proper, assuredly that was one. And yet the Scriptures abound with assurances that the angels are interested in human affairs, and that they have had an important agency in the concerns of man.

In the hand. That is, under the direction or control of. To be in the hand of one is to be under his control; and the idea is, that while this was done by the ordering of the angels, or by their disposition, it was under the control of a mediator. Rosenmuller, however, and others, suppose that this means simply by, (per;); that is, that it was done by the instrumentality of a mediator. But it seems to me to imply more than this; that the mediator, here referred to had some jurisdiction or control over the law thus given; or that it was subject to him, or with reference to him. The interpretation, however, will be affected by the view which is taken of the meaning of the word mediator.

Of a mediator. The word mediator μεσιτου means, properly, one who intervenes between two parties, either as an interpreter or internuncius, or as an intercessor or reconciler. In the New Testament, in all the places where it occurs, unless the passage before us be an exception, it is applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man, 1Timm 2:5, Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24. There has been some difference of opinion as to the reference of the word here. Rosenmuller, Grotius, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Robinson, (Lex.,) Chandler, and many others, suppose that it refers to Moses. Calvin and many others suppose that the reference is to Christ. The common sentiment among expositors undoubtedly is, that the reference is to Moses; and it is by no means easy to show that that is not the correct opinion. But to me it seems that there are reasons why it should be regarded as having reference to the great Mediator between God and man. Some of the reasons which incline me to this opinion are,

(1.) that the name mediator is not, so far as I know, applied to Moses elsewhere in the Scriptures.

(2.) The name is appropriated to the Lord Jesus. This is certainly the case in the New Testament, unless the passage before us be an exception; and the name is not found in the Old Testament.

(3.) It is difficult to see the pertinency of the remark here, or the bearing on the argument on the supposition that it refers to Moses. How would it affect the drift and purport of the apostle's reasoning? How would it bear on the case? But on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus, that would be a material fact in the argument. It would show that the law was subordinate to the Messiah, and was with reference to him. It was not only subservient by being ordained by angels, but as being under the Mediator, and with reference to him, until he, the "promised seed," should come.

(4.) It is only by such an interpretation that the following "vexed" verse can be understood. If that be applied to Moses, I see not that any sense can be affixed to it that shall be pertinent or intelligible. These reasons may not appear satisfactory to others; and I admit they are not as clear as would be desirable that reasons should be in the exposition of the Bible, but they may be allowed perhaps to have some weight. If they are of weight, then the sentiment of the passage is, that the law was wholly subordinate, and could not make the promise of no effect. For

(1) it was given hundreds of years after the promise.

(2.) It was under the direction of angels, who must themselves be inferior to and subordinate to the Messiah, the Mediator between God and man. If given by their agency and instrumentality, however important it might be, it could not interfere with a direct promise made by God himself, but must be subordinate to that promise.

(3.) It was under the Mediator, the promised Messiah. It was in his hand, and subject to him. It was a part of the great plan which was contemplated in the promise, and was tributary to that, and must be so regarded. It was not an independent scheme; not a thing that stood by itself; but a scheme subordinate and tributary, and wholly under the control of the Mediator, and a part of the plan of redemption, and of course to be modified or abrogated just as that This should require, and to be regarded as wholly tributary, to it. This view will accord certainly with the argument of Paul, and with his design in showing, that the law could by no means, and in no way, interfere with the promise made to Abraham, but must be regarded as wholly subordinate to the plan of redemption.

(*) "serveth" "To what purpose then was" (c) "It was" Rom 5:20 (d) "seed" Gal 3:16 (a) "by angels" Acts 7:53 (b) "a mediator" Ex 20:19-22, De 5:22-31 Verse 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, etc. This verse has given great perplexity to commentators. "There is, unquestionably," says Bloomfield, "no passage in the New Testament that has so much, and to so little purpose, exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators as the present, which seems to defy all attempts to elicit any satisfactory sense, except by methods so violent as to be almost the same thing as writing the passage afresh." In regard, however, to the truth of the declarations here--that "a mediator is not a mediator of one," and that "God is one"--there cad be no doubt, and no difficulty. The very idea of a mediator supposes that there are two parties or persons between whom the mediator comes, either to reconcile them or to bear some message from the one to the other; and it is abundantly affirmed also, in the Old Testament, that there is but one God. See De 6:4. But the difficulty is, to see the pertinency or the bearing of the remark on the argument of the apostle. What does he intend to illustrate by the declaration? and how do the truths which he states illustrate the point before him? It is not consistent with the design of these Notes to detail the numerous opinions which have been entertained of the passage. They may be found in the larger commentaries, and particularly may be seen in Koppe, Excursus vii., on the Galatians. After referring to a number of works on the passage, Rosenmuller adopts the following interpretation, proposed by Noesselt, as expressing the true sense: But he (i.e., Moses) is not a mediator of one race, (to wit, the Abrahamic,) but God is the same God of them and of the Gentiles. The sense according to this is, that Moses had not reference in his office as mediator or as internuncius to the descendants of Abraham, or to that one seed or race, referred to in the promise. He added the hard conditions of the law; required its stem and severe observances; his institutions pertained to the Jews mainly. They indeed might obtain the favour of God, but by compliance with the severe laws which he had ordained. But to the one seed, the whole posterity of Abraham, they concerning whom the promise was made, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he had no reference in his institutions: all their favours, therefore, must depend on the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. But God is one and the same in reference to all. His promise pertains to all. He is the common God to the Jews and the Gentiles. There is great difficulty in embracing this view of the passage, but it is not necessary for me to state the difficulty, or to attempt to show that the view here proposed cannot be defended. Whitby has expressed substantially the same interpretation of this passage: "But this mediator (namely, Moses) was only the mediator of the Jews, and so was only the mediator of one party, to whom belonged the blessing of Abraham, Gal 3:8,14. But God, who made the promise, `That in one should all the families of the earth be blessed,' is one; the God of the other party, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and so as ready to justify the one as the other." According to this interpretation, the sense is, that Moses was mediator of one part of Abraham's seed, the Israelites; but was not the mediator of the other part of that seed, the Gentiles; yet there was the same God to both parties, who was equally ready to justify both. Locke has expressed a view of the passage which differs somewhat from this, but which has quite as much plausibility. According to his exposition it means, that God was but one of the parties to the promise. The Jews and the Gentiles made up the other. But at the giving of the law, Moses was a mediator only between God and the Israelites, and, therefore, could not transact anything which would tend to the disannulling of the promise which was between God and the Jews and Gentiles together, the other party to the promise. Or in other words, at the covenant made on Mount Sinai, there was really present but one of the parties, and consequently nothing could be done that would affect the other. Moses did not appear in behalf of the Gentiles. They had no representative there. He was engaged only for the Jews, for a part only of the one party, and that part could not transact anything for the whole. The giving of the law, therefore, could not affect the promise which was made to Abraham, and which related to the Jews and the Gentiles as together constituting one party. This view is plausible. It has been adopted by Doddridge, and perhaps may be the true interpretation. No one can deny, however, that it is forced, and that it is far from being obvious. It seems to be making a meaning for the apostle, or furnishing him with an argument, rather than explaining the one which he has chosen to use; and it may be doubted whether Paul would have used an argument that required so much explanation as this before it could be understood. All these expositions proceed on the supposition that the word "mediator" here refers to Moses, and that the transaction here referred to was that on Mount Sinai. I would suggest a sense of the passage which I have found in none of the commentaries which I have consulted, and which I would, therefore, propose with diffidence. All that I can claim for it is, that it may possibly be the meaning. According to the view which I shall submit, the words here are to be regarded as used in their usual signification; and the simplest interpretation possible is to be given to the propositions in the verse. One proposition is, that a mediator is not appointed with reference to one party, but to two. This proposition is universal. Wherever there is a mediator, there are always two parties. The other proposition is, that God is one; that is, that he is the same one God, in whatever form his will may be made known to men--whether by a promise as to Abraham, or by the law as to Moses. The interpretation which I would propose embraces the following particulars:

(1.) The design of the apostle is, to show that the giving of the law could not abrogate or affect the promise made to Abraham; and to show at the same time what is its true object. It could not annul the promises, says Paul. It was given long after, and could not affect them Gal 3:17. It was an addition, an appendage, a subsequent enactment for a specific purpose, yet a part of the same general plan, and subordinate to the Mediator, Gal 3:19. It was to be shown also that the law was not against the promises of God. It was a good law, Gal 3:21; and was not designed to be an opposing system, or intended to counteract the promise, or the scheme of salvation by promise, but was a part of the same great plan.

(2.) A mediator always supposes two parties. In all the transactions, therefore, where a mediator is employed, there is supposed to be two parties. When, therefore, the promise was made to Abraham with reference to the Messiah, the great Mediator, and when the law was given in the hand of the Mediator, and under his control, there is always supposed to be two parties.

(3.) The whole arrangement here referred to is under the Mediator, and with reference to him. The promise made to Abraham had reference to him, and to those who should believe on him; and the law given by Moses was also under him, and with reference to him. He was the grand object and agent of all. He was the Mediator with reference to both. Each transaction had reference to him, though in different ways; the transaction with Abraham relating to him in connexion with a promise; the transaction at the giving of the law being under his control as Mediator, and being a part of the one great plan. There was an identity of plan; and the plan had reference to the Messiah, the great Mediator.

(4.) God is one and the same. He is throughout one of the parties; and he does not change. However the arrangements may vary, whether in giving the law or imparting a promise, he is the same. There is but one God in all the transaction; and he, throughout, constitutes one of the parties. The other party is man, at first receiving the promise from this one God with reference to the Mediator through Abraham, and then receiving the law through the same Mediator on Mount Sinai. He is still the one party unchanged; and there is the same Mediator, implying all along that there are two parties.

(5.) It follows, therefore, agreeably to the argument of the apostle, that the law given so long after the promise could not abrogate it, because they pertained to the same plan, were under the same one God, who was one unchanging party in all this transaction, and had reference to the same Mediator, and were alike under his control. It followed, also, that the law was temporary, Gal 3:19 interposed for important purposes until the "seed should come," because it was a part of the same general arrangement, and was under the control of the same Mediator, and directed by the same one God, the unchanging one party in all these transactions. It followed, further, that the one could not be against the other, Gal 3:21, because they were a part of the same plan, under the control of the same Mediator, and where the same God remained unchanged as the one party. All that is assumed in this interpretation is,

(a.) that there was but one plan or arrangement, or that the transaction with Abraham and with Moses were parts of one great scheme; and,

(b.) that the Mediator here referred to was not Moses, but the Messiah, the Son of God. The following paraphrase will express the sense which I have endeavoured to convey: "The giving of the law could not annul or abrogate the promise

made to Abraham. It was long after that, and it was itself

subservient to that. It was given by the instrumentality of

angels, and it was entirely under the control of the

Mediator, the Messiah. The plan was one; and all the parts

of it, in the promise made to Abraham, and in the giving of

the law, were subordinate to him. A mediator always supposes

two parties; and the reference to the mediator, alike in the

promise to Abraham and in the giving of the law, supposes

that there were two parties. God is one party--the same

unchanging God in all the forms of the promise and of the

law. In this state of things, it is impossible that the law

should clash with the promise, or that it should supersede

or modify it. It was a part of the one great plan;

appointed with reference to the work which the Mediator

came to do, and in accordance with the promise made to

Abraham; and therefore they could not be contradictory

and inconsistent."

It is assumed in all this that the Messiah was contemplated in the whole arrangement, and that it was entered into with reference to him. That this may be assumed no one can deny who believes the Scriptures. The whole arrangement in the Old Testament, it is supposed, was designed to be ancillary to redemption; and the interpretation which has been submitted above is based on that supposition.