Study Desk

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came ^(C1)430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

For ^(C1)if the inheritance is ^(F1)based on law, it is no longer ^(F1)based on a promise; but ^(C2)God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

^(C1)Why the Law then? It was added on account of the ^(F1)violations, having been ^(C2)ordered through angels ^(C3)at the hand of a ^(F2)mediator, until ^(C4)the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Now ^(C1)a mediator is not ^(F1)for one party only; but God is only one.

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? ^(F1)(C1)Far from it! For ^(C2)if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness ^(F2)would indeed have been ^(F3)based on law.

But the Scripture has ^(C1)confined ^(F1)everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

But before faith came, ^(F1)we were kept in custody under the Law, ^(C1)being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed.

Therefore the Law has become our ^(F1)(C1)guardian to lead us to Christ, so that ^(C2)we may be justified by faith.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a ^(F1)(C1)guardian.