Chapter # 3 Paragraph # 4 Study # 3
May 6, 2012
Dayton, Texas
(Download Audio)

<171> Thesis: The Law was never intended to bring men to "the inheritance" so that it never has stood in opposition to the promises. Introduction: In our study last week we looked into Paul's description of the Law as an "angelic/mediator" established phenomenon. We saw that it is impossible to not see that Paul is downgrading the identity of "Law" so that it cannot be held to be a means to imparting, or even enhancing, "the inheritance" to human beings. At its very root the Law was a mediated agreement between two parties. This makes it impossible to be a means to the inheritance because the only way the promise can be sure is if it is totally up to God. Since God's integrity is in the balance once He has made a promise, it is beyond impossible that He would put that integrity into someone else's lesser hands. This, Paul assumes, will raise another question in the minds of his readers: is the Law contrary to the promises? This is the issue Paul raises and addresses in 3:21-22. Just as an observation as we move into these words of Paul, let me just say that the very notion that the Law could be contrary to the promises can only exist in the minds of those who already misconstrue the identity and function of "Law" as a basic principle. If a person clearly understands God's reasons for promise and law, the idea that there is a conflict is completely off the charts. So, this evening we are going to see if we can get that idea of conflict "off the charts" for all of us.