God's Promise: Why the Law?

Galatians 3:15-22

Galatians 3:15-22.  I'd like to read this entire passage to you to begin with, so that you have it set in your mind as we begin. 

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man annuls, or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, 'And to seeds,' as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot annul, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

I told you that was difficult and it is.  It is very close logic on the part of Paul and we'll just hit it and see how far we get.  We'll think it through.  I promise you that if you stay with it, you'll understand it clearly.  It will all unfold to you.

Now, as we come to the book of Galatians, we are reminded again that the Apostle Paul is expounding the truth of salvation by faith.  That is his message.  But he doesn't just expound it, he defends it with some tremendous evidence: the evidence of experience, which he has given in 3:1-5, and the evidence of Scripture in 3:6-4:7.  In all of this large passage, from 3:6-4:7, Paul is amassing Old Testament verses that support the concept of justification, or salvation, by faith.  The reason it's so very important for him to support it from the Old Testament is that the Judaizers have used the Old Testament to propagate the doctrine of salvation by works.  So Paul takes the Old Testament, which they claim to believe and study and use to support their view of works, and he turns it around to show them that the Old Testament, in fact, teaches salvation by grace through faith.

The Judaizers had moved into Galatia where Paul had founded the churches and had really begun to undo his work.  First of all, they had told the people there that Paul was not to be listened to because he didn't have authority, that he wasn't a legitimate apostle.  So, for the first two chapters, Paul defends his apostleship.  The second thing the Judaizers said was, "His message is not true.  Justification is not by faith alone, but by faith plus works."  So in chapters 3-4, Paul defends the doctrine that he had preached of justification by faith alone.  The third thing the Judaizers did was to try and undermine the liberty of the Christian life.  So Paul takes chapters 5-6 of Galatians to defend liberty living for the Christian.

Now we saw in last week's lesson, as we began with 3:6, in this whole area of defending the doctrine of faith by justification from Scripture, that Paul used many Scriptures.  He used Genesis 15:6 in Galatians 3:6, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness."  In other words, he says, "If you're going to try to teach justification by works from the Old Testament, listen to this.  Abraham, the first of all the family of Israel, was justified by faith."  That's quoting from Genesis 15:6.  Then, in verse 8, he quotes Genesis 12:3 when he says, "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abram, saying, 'In thee shall all nations be blessed.'"  Here we find that the Gospel has to come to each individual on the basis of faith whether he's Jew or Gentile, and that it would be through the Messiah that all nations would enter into that blessing. 

In verse 10, he quotes from Deuteronomy 27:26.  "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law."  In other words, he said, "If you're going to try to live by the law, you've got to do it all or you're cursed.  That's Old Testament.  If you want to advocate legalism, just remember, you break one law one time and you're cursed."  Then he quotes, in verse 11, from Habakkuk 2:4, where Habakkuk said, "The just shall live by faith."  Again, he uses Old Testament proof for justification by faith.  In verse 12, he quotes from Leviticus 18:5.  "The man that does them shall live in them."  In other words, if you want to live by law, you're going to live and die by law.  Paul, of course, resolved all this proof into the great statement of verses 13-14.  "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.  He became a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."  So, just to give you a quick look back at that, the Apostle Paul has pointed out that God saves by faith and he has used at least five different Old Testament texts to prove that.

Now, he's not finished.  He has clearly presented, from verses 6-14, that Abraham was justified by faith.  There is no doubt about that.  He has amassed all this various Scripture, and the Jew has been taken back to the history of Abraham and has had to see, the Judaizers have had to see, the Galatian Christians have had to see, that Abraham was justified by faith.  The reason he was saved, the reason God accepted him, the reason he entered into a right relationship with God, was simply and only because he believed, not because of something he did.  It was because of his faith.

Now here comes the obvious argument of the Judaizers at this point, and Paul is great for anticipating arguments.  When you go to the book of Romans, he has this imaginary antagonist that he throws up in almost every chapter, for at least the first eight or so.  He throws this imaginary response up.  He goes and presents a case for something, but he knows that, on the basis of what he has said, there are a couple of obvious questions.  So he offers those obvious questions himself, as if he were his own antagonist, then he goes off and answers them. 

So here, the Apostle Paul has presented that Abraham was justified by faith.  All who followed Abraham were likewise justified by faith.  Immediately, he knows there is a question that will pop right up.  The question will be this, "OK, Paul, you say that Abraham was justified by faith, and the people who came after Abraham were justified by faith alone.  That's fine.  But, when the law finally came in 645 years after Abraham, that annulled the standard of salvation in Abraham's day and supplanted it with a new one."  The were going to say, "We buy the fact that Abraham was justified by faith, but that was only because the law hadn't come yet.  Once the law came, that changed everything."  The law would annul the earlier faith agreement.  So from the time of the law on, God would justify by faith plus works.  The Jew would say, "Why else would God give the law?"  That's an obvious question and I'm sure it's an obvious argument.  Here comes Paul, the theological hawk, swooping down on his opponent.  Beginning in verse 15, he answers the question that he himself anticipates.  As I say, he makes much use of an imaginary opponent.  He does this all the way through the book of Romans.

Granted, then, that Abraham was justified by faith. "Fine, Paul, you've supported that from Old Testament Scripture.  We can see.  But that was only good until the law came, and then the law replaced the promise of faith.  Once the law was given, you had to live by the law to be saved."  So Paul begins, in verse 15, to answer that question.  To do so, he goes back in history to Moses.  He went back to Abraham the first time, and now he goes back to Moses.  Here, he shows that God, in dealing with Abraham and in dealing with Moses, had two entirely different things in mind.  It's a tremendous passage, and you need to understand this.  When you get a hold on this, man, do you ever understand the purpose of law and the purpose of the promise.  There's a great difference.  To Abraham, God gave a promise.  There were no conditions, none at all.  He said, "Your seed will be as the sand of the sea.  In you will all nations be blessed."  He made the statement that from Abraham's loins would come the seed that would bless all men.  There wasn't anything for Abraham to do but just listen to the promise.  When He came to Moses, he didn't just give Moses a promise.  He gave Moses a law. 

Let me show you the difference in another way.  To Abraham, God said, "I will.  I will.  I will."  To Moses, He said, "Thou shalt.  Thou shalt.  Thou shalt, or else."  There is quite a difference.  The promise set forth a religion for God; the law set forth a religion of man.  The promise talked about God's plan, God's grace, God's initiative, God's sovereignty, God's blessing, God's promise.  The law talked about man's duty, man's works, man's responsibility, man's behavior, man's obedience.  The promise, which stood for grace, had only to be believed; the law, which stood for works, had to be obeyed.  They were two different things.  So, at this point, if the Jew were listening to what I'm saying, he'd say, "Right!  Right!  Now we've got to go with the law because it supplants faith."  That isn't true.  Let me show you why.  Here comes the argument of Paul. 

In his argument, there are two major points, a simple outline.  First, the superiority of the promise of faith, and secondly, the inferiority of the demands of the law.  People, this is really a great theology you're going to get tonight, an Old Testament theology.  By this comparison, he shows that justification is still on the basis of the promise to Abraham, and the law does not change that.  The law is still inferior to the promise.  The law does not supplant the promise.  If justification by faith was good in Abraham's day, he's going to tell us, it's good still and the law did not change that.  That's what he means to say. 

Let's look first of all at the superiority of the promise of faith from verses 15-18.  Paul presents four reasons for the superiority of faith over law: its confirmation, its Christ-centeredness, its chronology and its completeness.  Here his argument is really potent.  It's clear, incisive, delicate, detailed, intricate, but boy, is it strong.  Paul wails away on this concept of the superiority of faith, and he says, in effect, "The law is inferior.  Faith is superior."  Why?  Because it is unalterable.  Because it is fulfilled in Christ.  Because it was given first, and because it is completely effective.  Those four things.

First of all, its confirmation.  Faith is superior to the law because of its confirmation; it is irrevocable.  Verse 15.  "Brethren," and it's kind of a soft introduction, because the last time he called them by anything was in verse 1.  "Oh foolish Galatians.  You blockheads."  So he's eased off a bit. "Brothers, I speak after the manner of men," that is, "I'm speaking from the human standpoint, I'm speaking regarding a human custom.  I'm using an illustration from your normal, everyday life.  Though it be but a man's covenant [just an agreement, a human agreement that people make with each other], yet if it be confirmed, no man annuls, or adds to it."  Paul says this, "Let me give you a simple illustration.  To begin with, you people make agreements.  Now if that agreement is ratified, or confirmed, then nobody can change that agreement.  That's true in the human realm."  Right?  That's verse 15.  "Brethren, though it be but a human covenant, a covenant between men, once it's confirmed, it cannot be annulled or added to." 

The word 'covenant' here, diatheke, has in mind, I think, just the general word for covenant, agreement.  This word diatheke is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament as the word every time God's covenants appear.  Some would like to translate it 'a will,' or 'a testament,' like a last will and testament, but I don't think that's the meaning of the word here.  I think the use of it here fits the category of Old Testament language, since that's what he's talking about, and the Greeks used the word diatheke to speak of an agreement, a covenant between two people.  It didn't necessarily have to do with a will, although the word can refer to that.  It seems best to me, in this case, to use it in the sense of an agreement or a covenant. 
    

So, he says, "When men make an agreement, or a covenant, and confirm that thing, or ratify that thing, then it becomes a binding thing.  No one annuls it or adds to it."  Incidentally, there are two words that could be used for 'covenant,' suntheke and diatheke.  Just as a point of interest, diatheke has a much more one-sided idea to it than suntheke. The idea of sun has to do with an agreement from two parties; the diatheke word means more of a one-sided kind of covenant.  God made a covenant like that, much more one-sided than two-sided, believe me.

Look at Genesis 15 and I'll show you how the covenant was made and how it was ratified.  God made a covenant, an agreement, and bound Himself to it by having it ratified, or confirmed.  Verse 1.  "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, 'Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.' And Abram said, 'LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?'"  He didn't have his own seed, his own son.  So he says, "God, you keep telling me about this great inheritance, and I don't even have a child!" 

"And Abram said, 'Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir,'" a child other than his own.  "And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, 'This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own loins shall be thine heir.'"  God says, "You're going to have your own child."

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, 'Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them,' and he said unto him, 'So shall thy seed be.'"  You know what Abraham did?  "He believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."  There's the salvation of Abraham by faith, right there.  He believed God, and God made him righteous on the basis of faith. 

God gave him a covenant.  He said, "You're going to have a child, you're going to have people like the stars of heaven, and it's going to be a fantastic blessing that will come through these people."  And Abraham believed Him.  There wasn't anything for Abraham to do; he just listened.  It was pure promise.  God didn't say, "Now, you and I are going to work out a deal, Abram."  No, Abraham just stood there and listened.  It was, "I will.  I will.  I will."  Abraham's only involvement was, "OK, so You will.  I believe it."  That's all.

Verse 7.  "He said unto him, 'I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.'  And he said, 'LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?'"  He's saying, "How do I know?  You say I'm going to inherit, but how do I know this?"

"And he said unto him, 'Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.'"  God tells him to go get all these animals.  "And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst."  So he took the ram, the heifer and the she goat and cut them in half, sliced them down the middle.  "He laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not."  I've always said that if you divide a bird, all you get is a handful of feathers, so there's no sense in that.  He got two birds and he killed them.  So he split these three animals down the middle, one piece here, one piece here, one piece here, and he's got three divided animals with a little path in the middle.  One dead bird over here, another one over here.  You say, "What is going on?" 

Well, in the Orient, one of the ways that a covenant was ratified was by blood, or the shedding of blood.  In Oriental customs, when two men made an agreement, they would very often take a lamb or she goat or whatever it might be from each of their flocks, split them down the middle, lay the pieces on each side, and together, they would walk between the bloody pieces.  By walking between the bloody pieces, they were making a visible ratification of their covenant.  This confirmed the covenant.  God was getting ready, according to Oriental custom (which Abram knew very well), to ratify His agreement. 

Verse 11 says, "When the fowls came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away."  He's standing there, beating off all these birds, waiting for whatever's going to happen, to happen.  In verse 12, God gave him a little divine anesthetic.  "When the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and the horror of great darkness fell upon him."  He just went out like a light.  When he's out cold, and doesn't know what is going on, God makes a terrific promise.  He talks about Egypt, and what's going to happen over there, and I'll bring you out of there, and this, that and the other.  Verse 17. 

"And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces."  You know what this burning lamp and smoking furnace represents?  It represents the presence of God.  You know who went between the pieces?  God did.  Not Abram.  Why?  Because it wasn't an agreement between God and Abram, it was an agreement between God and God.  God was binding Himself to His covenant.  If you want to know whether the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, then all you need to know is it was God's own promise to Himself.  God bound Himself to the keeping of His covenant.

Listen; if then Abram was saved by faith, and God bound Himself to that kind of covenant, then that covenant was ratified for good.  God does not repent of that which He designs to do.  So God bound Himself to His own covenant, and once it was legally ratified, and ratified by blood, it could never be set aside, it could never be added to.  Incidentally, friends, it went into effect immediately.  Right in verse 6, it was in effect.  As soon as Abram believed, it was counted to him for righteousness.  Just that fast, that covenant was in effect.  You know something exciting?  It's still in effect today.  Salvation still comes by faith.  Now we can go back to Galatians.

So God made a covenant and ratified it.  That's what men did too; men ratified covenants, usually by some symbol of blood or some other particular symbol, depending on the culture.  Once it was ratified, nothing could be done to annul it or add to it.  Now, if we want to be fair with the Judaizers, we would probably have to say that the Judaizers didn't want to annul the faith idea; they just wanted to add to it, right?  They didn't want to wipe out faith altogether; they just wanted to have works plus faith.  So they wanted to add to it.  The legalists, incidentally, have always wanted to do that.  But once the covenant is ratified, you can't add to it. 

So Paul begins his argument by saying the covenant was confirmed.  It was ratified.  That means it is set; it cannot be altered or added to.  Here is his point: "Look, even a man's covenant, when it's confirmed, cannot be annulled or added to."  The implication is, if that's true in the human realm, how much more true is it when God makes a covenant and confirms it, if even men do that?  If the covenants of men are irrevocable and inviolable, then what must be the covenant of God?  So Paul's first argument is, "No, the law cannot come in and annul the first promise, because that was confirmed by God.  No one can change that."

The second thing that speaks of the superiority of faith over the law is that it was not only confirmed, but Christ-centered.  Its Christ-centeredness makes it superior.  Verse 16 is a very difficult argument.  In fact, from here down through verse 20 is some of the most difficult textual work that you'd ever want to do to try to figure out what's going on here.  The second thing he says, in essence, is that the covenant of faith (covenant means 'promise' or 'agreement', that God agrees to redeem man by faith, not works) or His agreement to redeem by faith is superior because of its Christ-centeredness.  Look at verse 16.  "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, 'And to seeds,' [plural] as of many; but as of one [seed], 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ."  Now this is most interesting, most interesting. 

The immutability, or unchangeableness, the irrevocability of God's promise is all the more evident when you see that it relates directly to Christ.  Now, if God makes a promise here that resolves itself in Christ over here, then you can't have something come in the middle to change that or you're fouled up on this end, you see?  So the law came in between the promise to Abraham and the coming of Christ for that 1500-year-period and cannot alter that which was made here, which pointed all the way over to Christ.  We'll clarify that later in further detail.  Don't worry if you don't get all this, just get what you get and be happy about that.  Don't worry about the rest.

In verse 16, Paul really does an exegesis on the seed.  He says that, "When God made the promise to Abraham, He didn't say, 'To seeds,' as of many, but as of one.  He said, 'Unto thy seed.'  And when He said, 'Unto thy seed,' you know what He meant?  He didn't mean all the Jews that would be born.  He meant Christ."  This is interesting.  You say, "Wait a minute.  What gives Paul the right to build an argument on that?  How can he say, 'Because it doesn't say "seeds," it therefore refers only to one?  The word 'seed' itself is often used to speak collectively."  The Greek word sperma is used to speak of collective seed.  When we talk about the 'seed' that came out of Abraham or even in the Old Testament, in Genesis, "Your seed shall be as the sand of the sea."  There, the singular word 'seed' is used to speak of a plurality; it's a collective singular.  How, then, can Paul take the liberty of taking that singular and making it mean 'one?'  He can do that for several reasons. 

One, it could mean that.  It could mean that.  'Seed' could mean 'one seed,' as well as a collective group.  The Hebrew word for seed is used to refer to one.  For example, in Genesis 1:35, it refers to Seth and Seth alone.  In Genesis 21:13, it refers to Ishmael and Ishmael alone.  In I Samuel 1:11, it refers to Samuel and Samuel alone.  In II Samuel 7:12, it refers to Solomon and Solomon alone.  So the word 'seed' is used in the Old Testament to speak of only one individual.  Apparently, in the verse in Genesis where God talks about the seed of Abraham, He is using it in this sense, to refer to one individual.  Incidentally, it has that same kind of possible use in the Greek as well.

Let me give you the best reason that Paul has a right to make the word 'seed' refer to one.  It is because the same Holy Spirit that wrote Genesis also wrote Galatians.  The Holy Spirit knows what He meant.  This is good!  So Paul has the right to interpret Genesis because the same Holy Spirit that authored that is guiding him in this.  You know what this is?  It's a case of the Holy Spirit interpreting the Holy Spirit.  When the Holy Spirit said in Genesis the words, "In thy seed shall all be blessed," the Holy Spirit had referenced Christ.  Paul, here, gives us the exposition of that passage to show us that's what the Holy Spirit meant.

Listen to this, now this is interesting.  Get this.  Hang on to your seat.  The one and only heir of everything, of every promise of God, is Christ.  Did you hear that?  The one and only heir of every promise of God is Christ.  Every promise given to Abraham. 

You say, "What about me?  What about all the people in the world?"  The only way you will ever get in on the promises of God is to be in Christ.  That's what he's saying.  You see, the promise resolves itself in Christ.  All of God's promises are, in Him, yes.  Right?  Yes!  So let it be.  Amen.  All of them.  The only way you or anyone else will ever know the promise of God is to be in Christ.  That's what he's saying.  In other words, it is because of what Christ does that anyone else is blessed.  The Bible tells us simply, in the book of Romans, "We become joint heirs with Christ.  The Father gives Him all things," the Bible says.  "The Father will deliver all things into His hands."  He is the one who inherits the earth, right?  He is the one in Revelation who has the title deed, the scroll.  He is the one who possesses the earth.  He is the King of the earth.  We reign in Christ.  So when God said to Abraham, "Thy seed is the key to blessing," He was talking about Christ.  The only way any man can be blessed is to be in Christ, to be involved in that which Christ accomplished on the Cross.

You ask, "Were Old Testament saints in Christ?"  Yes.  In the sense that when Jesus died on the cross, He bore also the sins of Moses.  Have you ever thought about that?  Abraham, everyone in the Old Testament, He gathered the sins from before and after the cross, didn't He?  All of history goes like this: the Old Testament goes to the Cross, the New Testament comes from the Cross.  It peaks out at the Cross.  He died for the sins of the whole world, right?  Could the blood of bulls and goats take away sin?  Were the Old Testament saints sanctified by the blood of bulls and goats?  They were sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ not yet shed, right?  But when it was shed, it covered the sins from both sides of the Cross.  It is only as a man, by faith, accepting God, is placed by God in a divine miracle, in Christ, that he will ever be blessed.  That's what Paul is saying.

So he says, "The Abrahamic Covenant resolves itself in Christ.  If the law, then, comes in between Abraham and Christ, it cannot annul that promise, for that promise comes all the way to Christ.  The law may come and go, but the promise resolves in Christ."  I hope you understand a little of that.  In Him and in Him alone will all the multitudes of believing Jews and Gentiles be blessed.  There is only blessing in Christ.  Abraham's seed is Christ, and we are blessed with faithful Abraham as we are in Christ.

You know, an interesting verse that supports this thought is Genesis 3:15, where we find the first prophecy of Christ.  It says, "The serpent will bruise his heel, but he will bruise the serpent's head."  There, Christ is called 'the seed of the woman'.  There you have the word 'seed' referring to one individual in opposition to Satan.  Maybe Abraham knew that.  Christ is called 'the seed' as far back as Genesis 3:15, so when we get later into Genesis and God refers again to the seed, He is referring to the same Christ that He referred to in Genesis 3:15 as the seed that would bruise the serpent's head. 

Paul shows, then, that God's promise to Abraham, in its richest spiritual meaning, was to be fulfilled in one person - the true seed, Jesus Christ.  Only those who are in Christ will know the blessing that comes with salvation.  How do you get in Christ?  Not by any works, but by the promise of faith.  The promise of faith.

There's a third thing, then.  The promise of faith is superior to the law because of its confirmation and its Christ-centeredness.  Thirdly, its chronology.  This just takes the argument a step further.  Verse 17 is chronology.  Interesting. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ," wow.  That's fantastic.  The two words 'in Christ' are not in the best manuscripts, so we would read it this way.  "The covenant that was confirmed before by God."  Oh, I like that.  That covenant was confirmed, ratified, and settled.  "The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot annul, that it should make the promise of none effect."  The Johnny-come-lately law, 430 years later, cannot change the ratified, confirmed promise of God.  Here you have the argument from chronology.  He says that the promise of faith is superior because of its chronology; it came first.  Not even the law can alter the promise of God, no. 

There's an interesting footnote here.  When you read this verse, he says here, "The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after," that's a problem, because the law came with Moses 645 years after Abraham.  So we have a little problem here.  Then some critics come along and say, "See!  There it is, more error in the Bible."  Is there an error in the Bible?  No.  So what do we do?  We keep working on it until we find out what's going on here.  What do we find out?  Interesting things.  Did you know that it was 215 years from Abraham's call to Jacob's descent into Egypt?  Listen, 645 - 215 = 430.  What's so significant about that?  God repeated the promise of faith to Abraham, to Isaac, and the last guy that he repeated it to was Jacob.  Paul is simply measuring the time from the last statement of the promise to Jacob, to the arrival of the law.  That was exactly 430 years.  The Bible is not in error; the Bible is accurate. 

You know the statement, "The promise was given to our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."  It was repeated to each of those.  So, from the last repetition to Jacob, there were 430 years until the law arrived.  What Paul is saying is, "The law which came 430 years after the last statement about the promise cannot make the promise of no effect.  It can't supplant it.  Listen, God has been saving man on the basis of faith since Adam.  Did you know that?  Since Adam!  God continued to save men on the basis of faith from Abraham's time right on out.  All of a sudden, 430 years later, in swoops the law.  It's only around for 1,500 years, and do you mean it's going to supplant the entire system of faith that God has ordained from Adam, throughout history, to be resolved in Christ?  No.  No."  Salvation has always been by faith, and the law, which only arrived for a period of 1,500 years, isn't going to change that.  So the superiority of the promise is seen by its confirmation, its Christ-centeredness, and its chronology. 

Fourthly, and lastly, it's seen in its completeness.  Verse 18.  "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."  That's good!  What is he saying?  He's saying this.  "If there's an inheritance here from this promise, it can't be by law and also by promise."  In other words, salvation can't be by faith and by works.  OK.  So it isn't by faith, and it isn't by works - those are contradictory things.  Why can't salvation be by the law?  It didn't come until 430 years after. 

What happened to poor old everybody who lived before Moses?  If salvation is by the law, what about all those people?  T