Thomas Aquinas

After the Apostle showed, both by the authority of Scripture and by human custom, that the law could not justify, here he raises two doubts and resolves them. The second doubt begins there: "Is the law then against the promises of God," etc.

Concerning the first he does three things. First he raises the doubt; second he resolves it, there: "because of transgressions," etc.; third he explains something set down within the solution, there: "now a mediator," etc.

Now there can be a doubt of this sort from what has gone before: if the law could not justify, whether it was altogether useless. And he raises this doubt, saying "What then is the law," etc. — that is, for what was the law useful? And Augustine approves this punctuation more, as is found in the Gloss, than another which had at first seemed better to him, namely that it be so distinguished: "What then?" And afterward it be said: "the law, because of transgressions," etc. A similar doubt is proposed in Romans 3:1, where it is said thus: "What then is more to the Jew," etc.

Then, when he says "because of transgressions," he resolves the doubt raised, where he does four things. First he sets forth the usefulness of the law; second, the fruit of the law, there: "until the seed should come," etc.; third, the ministers of the law, there: "ordained through Angels"; fourth, the lordship of the law, there: "in the hand of a mediator."

Concerning the first it must be noted that the old law was given on account of four things, corresponding to four things that follow from sin, which Bede enumerates: namely, on account of malice, weakness, concupiscence, and ignorance.

The law, then, was given first to repress malice — that is, while, by prohibiting sin and punishing it, men were drawn back from sin — and he touches on this, saying "the law was set because of transgressions," that is, for restraining transgressions; and concerning this it is found in 1 Timothy 1:9: "the law is not set for the just man, but for the unjust." The reason for this can be taken from the Philosopher in Ethics IV. For men who are well disposed are moved of themselves to act well, and paternal admonitions suffice for them, so that they do not need the law; but, as is said in Romans 2:14, "they are a law to themselves, having the work of the law written in their hearts." But men who are badly disposed need to be drawn back from sins by punishments. And therefore, as regards these, the positing of the law was necessary, which has a coercive power.

Second, the law was given to manifest weakness. For men presumed about two things: first indeed about knowledge, second about power. And therefore God left men without the teaching of the law, in the time of the law of nature, in which, while they fell into errors, their pride was convicted concerning the defect of knowledge, but there still remained a presumption concerning power. For they said, "one who would fulfill it is not lacking, but one who would command it is lacking," as is said in the Gloss on that word of Exodus 24: "Whatever the Lord shall command, we will do, and we will be obedient." And therefore the law was given, which would produce knowledge of sin — for "through the law comes the knowledge of sin," Romans 3:20. Which law, however, did not give the help of grace for avoiding sins, so that thus man, constituted under the law, might both test his own strength and recognize his own weakness, finding that without grace he could not avoid sin, and thus might more eagerly seek grace.

And this cause too can be taken from these words, so that it be said that the law was set for the fulfilling of transgressions — speaking, as it were, in that manner in which the Apostle says in Romans 5:20: "the law entered in that sin might abound"; which is not to be understood causally, but consecutively: because, with the law entering in, sin abounded, and transgressions were multiplied, while concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, burned the more toward that which was forbidden, and the sin became graver, with the transgression of the written law added on. And this God permitted, so that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Whence he says pointedly "it was set," as though placed in due order between the law of nature and the law of grace.

Third, the law was given to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, wearied by various ceremonies, they would turn aside neither to idolatry nor to wantonness. Whence Peter says in Acts 15:10: "this is a burden which neither we," etc.

Fourth, to instruct ignorance, the law was given as a figure of the grace to come, according to that word of Hebrews 10:1: "the law having a shadow," etc.

Then, when he says "until the seed should come," etc. — that is, Christ, concerning whom God had promised that through him all nations would be blessed. Matthew 11:13: "the law and the prophets were until John," etc. Genesis 12: "in thy seed," etc.

Now the ministers of the law are set down when he says "ordained" — that is, given in an orderly way — "through Angels," that is, through the messengers of God, namely Moses and Aaron. Malachi 2:7: "they shall require the law from his mouth," etc. "For the angel of the Lord," etc. Or "through Angels," that is, by the ministry of Angels. Acts 7:35: "you received the law by the disposition of Angels," etc. And it was given through Angels, because the law ought not to be given through the Son, who is greater. Hebrews 2:2: "for if the word spoken through Angels," etc.

He says "ordained," because it was given in an orderly manner, namely between the time of the law of nature, by which men were convicted that they could not help themselves, and the time of grace. For before they received grace, they had to be convicted by the law.

Now Christ is called the Lord of the law. And therefore he says "in the hand of a mediator," that is, in the power of Christ. Deuteronomy 33:2: "in his right hand a fiery law." 1 Timothy 2:5: "the mediator of God and men," etc. This mediator was signified by Moses, in whose hand the law was given. Deuteronomy 5:5: "I was the intermediary and the one in the middle between God and you," etc.

Then, when he says "now a mediator," etc., he explains what he had said, "in the hand of a mediator," which can be explained in three ways.

In one way, because a mediator is not of one only, but of two. Whence, since this one is the mediator of God and man, it is necessary that he be God and man. For if he were a mere man, or God only, he would not be a true mediator. If then he is true God, since no one is a mediator of himself, it could seem to someone that besides him there are other gods of whom he is the mediator; and he removes this, saying that this mediator, even though he is not of one only, there are not, on this account, other gods, but "God is one" — because, although he himself is other in person from God the Father, he is nevertheless not other in nature. Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God," etc. Ephesians 4:6: "one God," etc.

In a second way, because it could be believed that this one was the mediator of the Jews only; therefore he says: I say that Christ is the mediator, but not of one, namely of the Jews, but he is one of all — that is, sufficient for reconciling all to God, because he himself is God. Romans 3:30: "one God who justified circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith," etc. 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," etc.

In a third way, because he is not the mediator of one people only, namely the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Ephesians 2:14: "he himself is our peace, who made both one." And this, on the part of the Gentiles, by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews, by taking away the observance of the law.

But specially the mediator is the Son, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit; nonetheless, however, God is one.