Galatians 3:17

GOD’S COVENANT

The covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, … cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.’

Galatians 3:17

The figurative language, based upon the familiar custom of agreements and contracts among men, is applied to the relation between the Most High and those who are one with Christ Jesus.

I. Its author.—God deigns to establish a covenant between Himself and His people. This is a fact most wonderful, and most encouraging and inspiring.

II. Its beneficiaries.—It is for the advantage, not of the seed of Abraham only, but of every tribe and nation, upon a condition which is spiritual, and which may be fulfilled as well by Gentiles as by Jews.

III. Its character.—It is of the nature of a promise. It differs from human covenants, in which there is an obligation on both sides in this respect, that whilst God can do all things for us, we have nothing which we can pay to Him as an equivalent. On this account, the covenant is termed the covenant of grace.

IV. Its import.—Nothing earthly or temporary, but a spiritual and abiding blessing is assured to His people by the faithfulness of God. Righteousness, salvation, life: such is the description given of the advantage secured to those who benefit under this dispensation of Divine mercy.

V. Its supremacy.—St. Paul contrasts it with the law, which was given hundreds of years after the covenant of grace was revealed to Abraham; and he points out several respects in which the law given by Moses was inferior to the eternal promise of Divine grace.

VI. Its ratification and fulfilment.—This is by Jesus Christ, Abraham’s seed, the Mediator, by faith in whom the promise is given to them that believe.

Illustration

‘The very oath sworn to Abraham by his Maker was, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, designed to show to the heirs of promise, down the whole stream of time, the immutability of God’s counsels. God forbid, cries St. Paul, that any one should think that the law—the schoolmaster who was to bring us to Christ—was against the promises of God! Though the sanctions of the two covenants might be different—a circumstance which does not in the least affect the moral obligation—the terms on which they dealt with man were the same. This development may be more complete, more uniform, more equable, more progressive, under the Gospel than under the law; but the direction of that development was ever, if not consciously towards Christ, at least towards Christianity.’