Unity of Covenant of Grace - Exegesis of Gal. 3:17-22 — John Murray

Lord our God, Thou art the God who has revealed Thyself in all the elevations, in the abundance of Thy grace, and in the certainty and security. We pray, O Lord, that as we contemplate the moments of Thy grace in history, that we may have confidence, have great rejoicing, that the ends of the ages have fallen upon us, that we live in Thy covenant grace, the center of manifestation of power, all that is within us, Thy great name, for Jesus' sake.

In the test that you took a week today, there have been quite a number of fails, and quite a number of you have failed in that test, and therefore have to take a five. And I don't know exactly how many there will be sold when I read all the papers, because I have about eight or nine still to read.

But in the twenty-two or so papers I have read and read, there were several conditions. Now I don't want to make discrimination in the class by pointing out who have been conditioned and who haven't.

So I shall leave your papers in your mailbox either this afternoon or tomorrow morning, and that will indicate to those of you who have been conditioned that that is your situation. In a sealed envelope in your mailbox.

And those of you who have made a five should by all means take a re-examination. Fear what the ultimate consequences may be if you don't do better, very, very considerably better in your final examination when you have done this test.

So in order to give you the opportunity to remedy to some extent the failure in this last test next week, you will take another test. And you see the way I worked it as far as the last test, a five, and then you take another test, another make-up test, a two in that next one.

I will put fives up to five and two. Probably will give you a three minus or something like that as the grade in that test. Of course, in a final examination, if you get a five, you can't get higher than a four in the final re-examination, even though you had a first group.

But in class work, I just balance them. So I would urge those of you who will be in court this afternoon or tomorrow morning, that you will receive a mailbox taking another test sometime next week. And as there are quite a number of you, I don't think I should hurry to give you all individual tests at different times because that type of thing drives me almost crazy.

I would be still worse if you all came in penny numbers. Well, now we're dealing with this subject of the unity of covenant grace and dealing with dispensation. I mentioned a few things yesterday as to what is not the issue, what are not the issue in connection with dispensation.

Grace and Works in Dispensational Theology

And I want to make one further point here in that connection, that here neither is the point of issue whether modern dispensationalists actually maintain that during the dispensation of law, any were actually saved by works of law.

They don't maintain any such thing that any, during that period, were actually saved by works of law. For they acknowledge that in all ages, men were saved by the blood of Christ through the grace of God.

The real question here is whether construction offered is correct, whether that construction of the mosaic economy is correct, and whether the concession made that during that period men had been saved by grace consistent with construction of the mosaic dispensation.

The Abrahamic Principle of Salvation by Grace Through Faith

The thesis I am going to propound is dispensation or covenant. The Abrahamic principle of grace, undergirding principle, its governing and undergirding principle, was one that provided for salvation by grace through faith.

But the saints in that period were saved by mosaic, by salvation, through grace, on the basis of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. But nevertheless, the principle that undergirded the mosaic dispensing and the mosaic covenant, Sinai to Calvary, was the very antithesis of grace.

The very antithesis. You cannot operate it at the same time. Salvation is contrary to faith. The very dispensation in which they lived to demonstrate this nature of grace is present. They granted it through promise.

Galatians 3:17–19 and the Purpose of the Law

What then is the law? It was added on account of the transgressions. Until the seed gains wings, and the creator is not of one, one against the promises given, able to make alive their wick with faith.

The Promise and the Sinaitic Administration

...shut up all things under sin, in order that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. First of all, before we proceed to study this passage in detail, we have to admit, we have to, not simply admit, but to recognize that dispensationalists, as well as others, see the Abrahamic covenant as one of grace.

Dispensationalists, a covenant of promise, yet between law and grace, all deals expressed in relation to the Abrahamic covenant. His expression on this construction is correct, altogether agreeable. Whereas the mosaic of thirty years does not disavow promise to naught.

The Sinaitic administration, coming four hundred and thirty years, does not make void so as to bring the promise to naught. Now this means that the administration of the law of Sinai, the Abrahamic covenant, the central gate, the Abrahamic covenant, are the promises which that covenant comprises.

Now that is so patent that dispensationalists say the same thing. They are insistent that the Abrahamic is not abrogated by the mosaic. The implication of falsehood is overlooked or not appreciated. To the odd ministry, consistent with the principle of grace and promise, governing the Abrahamic covenant, absolute antithesis that there is between justification by works, justification by grace, the epistles of Romans and Galatians built upon that antithesis by grace.

It is that antithesis that he enunciates in verse eighteen, when he says,. For if the inheritance is of law, it is no longer a promise. If the inheritance is of law, it is no longer a promise. For which he refers to that antithesis in verse eighteen.

For which he appeals to that antithesis. It is not at all so that the Sinaitic administration was one of law, in opposition to grace, between verses seventeen and eighteen. The administration of Sinai of the effect of unknowing, the Abrahamic covenant.

We just need to read the two verses again in order to see that that is really false. False again. But I say a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, that's the Abrahamic covenant. The law, the Sinaitic administration, which came after four hundred and thirty years, does not make void, so as to bring the promise to naught.

The Mosaic Administration as Parenthesis or Supplement

False. If the inheritance is of law, it is no longer a promise. So I think even at this point, you can detect two verses today. The Sinaitic administration does not in any way whatsoever interfere with the Abrahamic covenant was given, or upon which, those seconds we have confirmation, which have an addition, and that is just saying that it was an appendix.

You see, however, is the idea that it was a parenthesis. It was a parenthesis between the Abrahamic covenant, or dispensation, and the new covenant, or the new testament dispensation. Parenthesis. It was a parenthesis because the parenthesis that governed the Abrahamic dispensation and covenant suspended, has been, has been, yes, has been suspended.

Clearly that it is an enlargement, supplementation, of conserving and promoting the aims contemplated in the Abrahamic promise. The purpose of conserving and promoting the ends contemplated in the Abrahamic promise.

There is not this remotest suggestion of incompatibility. Opposition, contradiction, is language that points to perfect agreement. The mosaic administration is ancillary, ancillary, which he would use to denote is language that points in the very opposite direction, the very opposite direction, expansion of 21.

Galatians 3:21 and the Law's Relation to God's Promises

With additional confirmation, interpretation of verses 17 and 18. In verse 21, it is, is the law then against the promises of God, God forbid, Yes, I told you. Paul, we have, interpreting his talk to be in verses 17, 18 and 19.

Because he asks the pointed question, is the law then against the promises of God? Paul, the synodic administration, against the promises, from which the two pharaohs according to some text has made many differences, of the Abrahamic covenant, that Paul has a duty to depend on, is it?

Now, if Paul were, what is his dispensation to say, by all the administrations, against? Because, the practical principle, the principle of what? Paul says, is, against. Hiding the great law, against.

In the Old Testament, it is, the Lord forbid, or God forbid. It is abbreviated in the New Testament, as he said, in the N .R .I. talk, but, the force of it, ought to be, that of the Old Testament formula, God forbid, the strongest negative, that the apostle has at his disposal.

In his capable conclusion, the synodic administration, of the specific question, deals with the express covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, one being, against the promises of God, God forbid. Then we read later, in this very verse, For if a law were given, egare doth e nomos, if a law were given, and it hath been given, which is able to make alive, verily from law, righteousness would have been.

It's very likely, that Paul is using the word nomos, in this case, in the more restrictive sense. It's a very likely suggestion, that in the very formal, in the very formal statement, if a law had been given, which was able to make alive, well, it doesn't make any particular difference, in the restrictive sense, that it occurs here, but, nevertheless, the main point is, that it is impossible, impossible to attain to righteousness, by works of law.

The Impossibility of Justification by Works of Law

The reason for which Paul appeals to this, is that because of its inviolable truth, because of its inviolable truth, we are not to find, in the Mosaic economy, the position of proposal, such an arrangement.

Paul is appealing to it here. The thing is this, that we must not interpret, the Mosaic dispensation of law, a principle, ethical to promise, for the very simple reason, that the antithetical principle, is an impossibility.

Let me read the whole of verse 21 again, in order that you can see that sequence of thoughts. He kissed the law then, but gave us the law, therefore against the promises of God. God forbid! What tells us?

No contradiction here. For if a law had been given, that was able to make a lie, then righteousness would have been of the law. You have the strong adversity of the verse 22, but the scripture has shoved up all things.

What is this? If it had been possible, righteousness, that is justification, to have been by the law, then certainly by the law it would have been. But since that is a utter impossibility, utterly inconceivable, how ridiculous it would be, to interpret the Mosaic economy, in terms of our provision.

Possibility of ever coming to fruition. Dissolution in salvation. God did not give this dispensation on the basis of an impossible hypothesis. Hypothesis that would never have yielded any fruit. Furnish this subject on Tuesday, and then go on to deal with Christology.