THE PRIORITY OF THE PROMISE
“Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto” (Galatians 3:15).
When a man makes a covenant nothing can be added to it or taken from it. When men make a covenant and swear to them, no feature of the covenant can be changed or altered. The same is true with reference to God’s covenant with Abraham. God gave to Abraham seven fantastic promises (Gen. 12:1-3) which included and inheritance of “a land that I will show thee.” God’s covenant with Abraham was a “land grant” covenant, not a suzerainty-vassal covenant. God gave the land to Abram. God didn’t ask Abraham anything in return. It was “the promise that he should be the heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). Abraham “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham “desire[d] a better country, that is, an heavenly” (Heb. 11:16).
Abram had now received from God, in promise, the blessing of God which would make him a “blessing to all nations” (Gen. 12:2); he had received the promise of the world for an inheritance; he had received the promise of a seed in whom all nations should be blessed (Gen. 15:3-7); he had received the benefit of the priesthood of the most high God (Gen. 14:18, 19); and he had received the righteousness of God, fitting him to enter of right into that eternal inheritance.
And now Abram asks: “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Gen. 15:8). In pledge to Abram that he shall inherit all that has been promised, God made a covenant with Abram. A heifer was divided and God passed through the sacrifice. “Behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram” (Gen. 17, 18).
God expressed his agreement, that that covenant could no more fail than that he himself could be severed in twain. Thus the Lord pledged himself, in his very life, that all the promises which he had made to Abram should be fulfilled, and that not one of these promises could fail any more than that God should cease to live. That covenant of God with Abram was confirmed by the sacrifice of Him who made the covenant. By “two immutable things” God promised and swore by oath that His covenant would be fulfilled (Heb. 6:18).
“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” (Galatians 3:16).
God’s promise was made to Abraham and his “seed” Christ. God’s covenant with Abraham was not a covenant of law, but of promise. This covenant was doubly confirmed by promise and oath, “in Christ,” at the time of the making of the covenant. “For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20).
It appears on the surface to be very Bad News, but here it is: According to the Book of Galatians, only one human being has ever been guaranteed eternal life, and that is Christ Himself. Paul specifically says that heirship to salvation is not “plural” but “singular”: “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” (3:16). Every other person who will someday walk through the Pearly Gates will do so as “in Him.”
In a purely legal sense, the entire human race is “in Him,” but no one could be happy entering heaven in that purely legal sense, for he would be miserable there, feeling totally out of place. He would run for the nearest exit. It’s in an experiential sense that we can want to be “in Christ.” Only then could we be happy there.
But how does one experience this “oneness” “in Christ”? Jesus tells us, “Abide in Me . . .” (Jn. 15:4). He put us “in Himself” by virtue of His identity with us, His sacrifice. Now stay where I put you, He says. I put you in the Father’s hand, He says, and “no man is able to pluck [you] out of My Father’s hand” (Jn. 10:29).
But be warned: the Calvinist idea of “once saved always saved” is a distortion of the truth. “No man” can pluck you out of that Hand, but you can jump out on your own! “Esau” enjoys the possession of a priceless “birthright,” but at any time he can sell it for “a mess of pottage.”
You identify with Christ by entering in to His experiences all the way through His life, even up to His cross. And in that final point of identity your soul is welded to His soul as by a white hot flame of shared experience. “I am crucified with Christ,” says Paul; and “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Christ” (Gal. 2:20; 6:14).
“And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17).
The coming in of the ten commandments 430 years later at Mt. Sinai did not change God’s covenant previously given to Abraham. There were no additional features added to the covenant at Mt. Sinai. In other words, it was not a covenant of works. It was not a contract whereby God said you obey these commandments and you may live. If it was now a covenant of man’s obedience at Sinai, it would nullify the promise of God given to Abraham.
The covenant and promise of God are one and the same. Paul asserts that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. God’s covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them.
After the Flood God made a “covenant” with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return (Genesis 9:9-16). They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do—receive. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask, or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing. And He gives us Himself, that is, everything.
That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be an equal, “mutual” affair—a transaction in which they can consider themselves on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact—that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything and gives everything.
Therefore God’s righteousness in Christ can never be an “offer” or “mutual agreement.” It is a free gift to every man. If salvation were a matter of God’s gift to a select few, then it would not be a free gift. It would be given to those who do something right first in order to receive it.
“For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise” (verse 18).
Therefore, since perfect and everlasting righteousness was assured by the “will” made with Abraham, which was also confirmed in Christ, by the oath of God, it is impossible that the law, which was spoken four hundred and thirty years later, could introduce any new feature. The inheritance was given to Abraham by promise.
But if after four hundred and thirty years it should develop that now the inheritance must be gained in some other way, then the promise would be of no effect, and the “will” or covenant would be made void. But that would involve the overthrow of God’s government and the ending of His existence. For He pledged His own existence to give Abraham and his seed the inheritance and the righteousness necessary for it. “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Romans 4:13, KJV. The gospel was as full and complete in the days of Abraham as it has ever been or ever will be. No addition to it or change in its provisions or conditions could possibly be made after God’s oath to Abraham. Nothing can be taken away from it as it thus existed, and not one thing can ever be required from any man more than what was required of Abraham.
Now here’s what Waggoner said. And you’d better fasten your seat belts. You won’t hear this outside of the 1888 message. Waggoner said it was never God’s original plan to come down on Mount Sinai. Scare the people with the death boundary and the lightning and the earthquake and write the law in stone.
He didn’t do that for Abraham, did He? No. Why did He do it for Israel? Well, go back to Exodus. We’ve got to take a look here. Exodus chapter nineteen. And if you’ve ever watched Sesame Street you know that nineteen comes before twenty. OK. Nineteen comes before twenty. Something happened in nineteen that made twenty necessary. If what happened in nineteen had never taken place chapter twenty would never have taken place as it is. Chapter twenty is a secondary plan that God had.
So chapter nineteen verses 3 and 4 the Lord calls Moses up into the mountain and says, “Thou shalt say. . . Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians. . . .” In other words, give them good news to start with. Give them the gospel to start with. “. . . How I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.” There’s the gospel.
You know how the eagle trains her young. She builds a nest up on the high cliff. One day when they’re growing up and teenagers the mother says, OK, boys and girls, it’s time to learn how to fly.
Oh, no, mother. No, it’s too far down there. We’re not ready to learn how to fly. Yup!
Number one gets pushed out of the nest. Down he falls like a bullet. Flapping his wings. At the last moment the mother sweeps under him with her great wings and lifts him up. “I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.”
“Now therefore,” verse 5. You’ve got to do a little bit of Hebrew here in order to understand this. “. . . If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, . . . .”
Now the two words are related. Shamar and shamea. “If you will obey my voice. . . .” Now the Hebrew word for “obey” is the same as the Greek word in meaning. It really means “to listen.”
For example, the word for shamea in the Old Testament is translated as “hear” 760 times and as “hearken” 196 times and as “obey” only 87 times. The basic meaning is “to listen.”
If you are a mother or father you’ve probably learned to get your child to listen you’ve probably solved the problem of obedience.
“. . . And keep my covenant. . . .” That verb “keep” is shamar and you’ll find it in Genesis 2:15 where Moses writes that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden “to dress it and to keep it.” Shamar.
“That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be an equal, ‘mutual’ affair—a transaction in which they can consider themselves on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact—that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything and gives everything.” The Glad Tidings, p. 71.
We think the Lord made a bargain with Israel there. Now look. I have a Toyota out there and I will sell you my Toyota for $100. We’ve made a covenant, see. I’ve promised him my Toyota for $100. Did you see us shake hands? That’s what we call a covenant. It’s a two-way agreement, see.
And we think this means that God made a two-way agreement there with Israel. If you people will do every little thing exactly right like this poem I read to you from the children’s Psalms for Tiny Tots and keep my law exactly right, then I’ll bless you.
But the Lord put Adam in the garden of Eden to “keep” it. Does it make sense to say he was to obey the garden? That word shamar does not mean “obey.” It means to “cherish.” That’s what it means.Cherish, you see. Take it to your heart. If you will cherish the promise I made to you father Abraham, if you will have the faith of your father Abraham, God says, then I will do some wonderful things.
And there’s a play on words here. “. . . Then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. . . .” And the play on words in the Hebrew is lost in the English translation.
The Lord says, If you will treasure the promise I made to Abraham, I will treasure you above all people. There will be no need for the Babylonian Empire, or the Assyrian Empire, or the Medo-Persian Empire, or the Grecian Empire, or the Roman Empire to trample down the earth and to persecute you. No need for that. You’ll be the greatest nation on the planet. You will build a university to which all the youth of the world will come to learn the way of God. You will be the head and not the tail. If you will just cherish the faith of your father Abraham.
But the people misunderstood. And they returned an answer which gives the old covenant. Verse 8, they promised “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” And that was the old covenant.
Now Steps to Christ, p. 47 says, you don’t have the strength to keep the promise. “The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you; but you need not despair. What you need to understand is the true force of the will [of choice]. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. . . . The power of choice God has given to men.”
They didn’t either. The Lord knew that. But the Lord couldn’t zap them. If they would not keep step with Him He must humble Himself and keep step with them.
Waggoner said, that’s why God came down with thunder, lightning and earthquake and scarred the people. And wrote the law on tables of stone. To help them see how weak and helpless they were.
That old covenant promise was the basis of the sanctuary service. As you read in Hebrews 9:1, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly [earthly] sanctuary.” So the entire sanctuary service was an outgrowth of the old covenant.
There was probably not even one king of Israel with the possible exception of David himself, who ever understood the new covenant clearly.
The revivals and reformations under King Hezekiah, King Jehosophat, even King Josiah the whole time were old covenant. That’s why they all failed. The history is distressing. You read how the people worshipped Baal and went back into heathen customs and the Lord raised up another king who straightened things up and broke down the idols and brought in a reformation. Reinstituted the Passover. Had a wonderful revival. And then that king dies and his son comes along and leads them all back into idolatry. Up and down, up and down.
Until finally you come to King Josiah. The last good king they ever had in Judah. And he followed God’s little red books meticulously every little detail that the Spirit of Prophecy said. King Josiah was one hundred percent for that. He was really going to straighten things out. And young prophet Jeremiah was so happy. And then what happened? King Josiah rejected the equivalent of the latter rain in his day. Because a message came to him from the Spirit of Prophecy from a source he never dreamed could be from God. The mouth of pagan King of Egypt Pharoah Necho. And he despised that word. Rejected it. And went out and died. And from then on Judah went downhill all the way.
They went into captivity. The beautiful temple was burned up. The city was destroyed. That was the old covenant.
What’s your assessment of Nehemiah? Nehemiah did the best he could and yet it was the old covenant. The kings led Israel into idolatry and didn’t lead them back to God. And then they got so such down into their own interpretations of the law. Exactly. It was tragic. And, yet, it was good in that he did the best that he could.
But I think, do I dare say this. I’ll say it. If I’m wrong you can correct me. As far as I know, aside from Jesus, the first Jew who ever clearly understood the significance of their history was Paul. And it’s right here in Galatians.
Do you think we ought to repeat that history? We are.
“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” (Galatians 3:19).
Why then the law? “If we are saved by grace, what need have we of the law?”
George Butler had already gone on record with Ellen White about the “added” law. He had written to Ellen White:
“It would be a most bitter pill to many of our leading brethren to be compelled to see the idea taught generally, that the law which was added because of transgression was the moral law itself.”
He believed the whole church would be sold over to antinomianism if the ceremonial law interpretation of Galatians 3:19 was surrendered.
The idea of the law being “added” sounded like it just came into existence at Mount Sinai. No law-abiding Seventh-day Adventist would hear of such a thing. They believed the law was co-existent with God. It was no wonder then, that Butler and others viewed the “added” law as the typical remedial system given to Moses.
But Waggoner pointed out that the words “spoken” or “emphasized” were more precise than the King James Version translation “added” (Galatians 3:19). “It was spoken because of transgression.” Waggoner affirmed: “. . . the law was already in existence, and known to man, although only by tradition; but now the Lord added it in written form.”
A parallel passage to which Waggoner referred was Romans 5:20: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.” Explained Waggoner: “The ‘entering’ of the law was at Sinai. Why did it enter?—That the offense (sin) which previously existed might abound.” The law was emblazoned at Sinai so that they would recognize their utter sinfulness. “. . . It was necessary for men to see the real nature of sin, in order that they might seek the grace that is in Christ, which alone can take away sin.”
D. M. Canright represented the brethren in the East when he wrote about the “added law.”
. . . The second law was added to point to the promised seed till he should come. . . . Why was this law given? . . . . “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come.” Then it was not the moral law; for that does not point to Christ, nor say anything about the coming of the seed, while the law of sacrifices, types, and shadows, related wholly to that promised seed.
So Canright viewed the law in Galatians 3 as the ceremonial law. In addition, he interpreted the coming of the seed to be Christ’s first advent anticipated by the sacrifices and types. In doing this, he denied the function of the moral law in pointing us to Christ as the only means of solving the sin problem.
However, Waggoner kept in view the full scope of God’s promise to Abraham. The cross was of strategic importance in ratifying the covenant, but its ultimate fulfillment would not be complete “. . . till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. . . .” (Galatians 3:19b).
What is the coming of the seed? Certainly, not ultimately, the first advent of Christ, Waggoner replied. God promised Abraham, “And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17). Christ’s enemies as well as Satan would not be removed until the second coming (Revelation 19:11-21).
That word “added” is something which has caused a lot of problems. Non-Adventists say, Well, there were no ten commandments up until this point. The Lord had tried to save people some other way and it didn’t work. So now the Lord said I’m going to really do something. I’m going to give them ten commandments and tell them you do these things or else. I’m going to write them in stone so that nobody can change them. Later on when God saw that the people couldn’t keep the ten commandments He decided on another way to save them by sending grace through Jesus. So at the cross God threw out the ten commandments. That’s what they think the word “added” means.
But really the word “added” means underlined, or, if you please, put in italics. If you work on your computer the idea would be to press the word “Bold.” That’s what that word means. It was emphasized. It was emboldened. It was underlined, italicized.
Israel was so arrogant as to think they could keep God’s law and said so. Therefore, God was forced to do something with Israel that He did not need to do with Abraham. Abraham was convicted of his sinfulness and great need of a Saviour. Not so Israel. So God scarred the people half to death and delivered His law in stone with the intent of convicting them of sin and their need of a Saviour.
“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” (Galatians 3:19).
In their current state it certainly was better for Israel to have the written law rather than to have no law at all. To them was committed the oracles of God and the covenants. It gave them a picture of what they should be. Unfortunately, they continued in a state of unbelief and refused Christ.
“In the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” Verse 20. The expression, “but God is one,” indicates that God is one of two parties between whom there is a mediator in whose hand the law was ordained. Now when we read that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), the conclusion seems irresistible that the “mediator” in whose hand the law was ordained, or disposed, was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Even so when we learn that Christ was with the church in the wilderness, that he was upon Mount Sinai, and that it was in his hand that the law was ordained, we are not surprised to hear him say, . . . Matthew 5:17-20 quoted.” E. J. Waggoner, “Comments on Galatians 3. No. 7,” The Signs of the Times 12, 32 (August 19, 1886), p. 502.]
It has been repeatedly asserted that there is nothing inherently wrong with the law of God. It is holy, just and good. “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” (Galatians 3:21). The law was contained in unwritten form in the promises that God made to Abraham. Abraham received the righteousness of the law by faith in Christ. His genuine faith manifested itself in obedience to all the commandments of God (Genesis 26:5). When Abraham had Christ he had the living law, but without Christ the law is powerless and cannot convey any life whatsoever to the sinner. All the law can bring is condemnation and death. The law can describe in words what righteousness and love and acceptable behavior is, but it cannot produce it.
