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.
Read Chapter 3
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
Is the law then against the promises of God? Jerome correctly points out that this is an answer by anticipation to the objection to which S. Paul had exposed himself in verse19 , when he said, "The law was added because of transgressions till the seed should come." For any one might say: If the law was added to the promise, and, as it were, removed it, it seems to have taken to itself the office of quickening and justifying men, so that it may be regarded as doing the work of the promise till Christ should come; for if not, why was it added, unless it were, as you say yourself, because of transgressions, to destroy them by the living and virtuous actions prescribed by the law for justification? If this be Song of Solomon , then the law is against the promises of God, for God promised this justification to faith in Christ, not to the law, nay, He thereby excluded it from the law.
That S. Paul is meeting an objection of this sort is obvious from what follows. The law, he exclaims, canno...
We have said that the law given by Moses teaches nothing but sins, admonishing us what sins are and how they are to be avoided. And Scripture draws no other conclusion but lays down all its precepts in the light of and with reference to sin…. It is not given so that life may be sought from it but is given so that by its written form it may both include all sins in its teaching and show that they should be avoided. Therefore righteousness is not from the law; that is, justification and salvation come not from the law but from faith, as is promised. .
Since God gave the law, it is not plausible that that same law should be seen as having been given against the promises. It is certainly against the promises if it embroils us in other things, namely, that we should fulfill the works required by the law and not expect from faith what is promised, that we should obtain through faith an inheritance in God. But let us see what is his answer to this. He first denies it unequivocally: “Certainly not!” That is, it is not right that God should make the giving of the law contrary to the promises…. And next he adds the reason. .
Is the Law then against the promises of God?
For if the blessing is given in the seed of Abraham, but the Law brings in the curse, it must be contrary to the promises. This objection he meets, first, by a protest, in the words,
God forbid:
And next he brings his proof;
For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily righteousness would have been of the Law.
His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown b...
