After further study, I’ve re-written elements of this post.
We’ve been looking at Christ’s, Peter’s and Paul’s view of the Old Testament. I’d like to finish with John’s view of the Old Testament, but that’s a class assignment for my students, and I’ll wait till they submit before posting that (sorry, dear students!).
Instead, today we’ll look at Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul again seems to paint the Old Testament in a wholly negative light. But, again, Paul is not dealing with the Old Testament as rightly understood, but with the Old Testament as warped and perverted by Judaizing legalists.
Background
Through the Christ-centered preaching of the Apostle Paul, the Galatians had been delivered from the bondage of trying to get to heaven by obeying the Ten Commandments and following the ceremonial law. Paul preached a Christ who had obeyed the moral law for sinners, a Christ who had suffered the penalty of a law broken by sinners, and a Christ who had abolished the rituals and ceremonies by fulfilling them. And many Galatians believed in this Christ. The yoke of bondage was smashed. The prison doors were opened. The chains fell off. They entered a new world of freedom and liberty. Who would ever give that up?
Well, the Galatians did. They allowed false teachers from the Jewish Church to persuade them that faith in Christ was not enough. They needed to be circumcised. They needed to follow the ceremonial rituals. Turning away from Christ they put their neck under the heavy yoke again, they put the cuffs on, and padlocked their legs in chains. Paul protests: “Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” (v. 21). If I may paraphrase this, Paul is saying: “Tell me, you who are trying to be saved by keeping the law of Moses, have you not read the law of Moses?” He then points them to Genesis 15-17, to show that it was never God’s intention that sinners be saved by keeping Moses’ law. “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman” (v. 22). The mother of the first child was Hagar, the slave (v. 22). Her son, Ishmael, was “born after the flesh” (v. 23), the result of foolish human reasoning and sinful human effort. The mother of the second child was Sarah, Abram’s wife. Her child, Isaac was the result of God’s promise. Paul calls these two births “an allegory,” a living parable for two ways of relating to God (v. 24) The birth of Ishmael is a vivid illustration of relating to God by using the best human reasoning plus the best human effort. Ishmael is human effort apart from the divine promise. Ishmael is a symbol of man’s helping hand for a helpless God. The birth of Isaac, in contrast, is an illustration of relating to God by trusting in His promise alone. He is a symbol for man’s helplessness reaching out for divine help. Paul then changes the imagery a bit. He moves from an immoral bedroom to a dusty, distant, desert mountain. He says that the Ishmael way of relating to God is similar to the covenant from Mount Sinai, also called Agar by the Arabs (v. 24). On the face of it, Paul seems to be saying that when God entered into covenant with Israel at Sinai, he was initiating a “fleshly” way of relating to Him. Israel was to bring their best human reasoning and their best human effort. If that’s what Paul is teaching here, it’s no wonder that he refers to the Sinai covenant as “bondage” (v. 24). This is the view of many commentators, including Warren Wiersbe, who wrote:
The Law was never given to impart life; it was definitely a ministry of death…The Old Covenant was a covenant of works and bondage (Acts 15:10). But the New Covenant is a ministry of glorious liberty in Christ.
Did Moses have a Gospel?
But is that what Paul is teaching? I don’t believe it is. Paul is not looking back at the Sinai covenant and portraying it as a legalistic bondage. He is looking at the way the present day Jews had misunderstood the originally gracious Sinai covenant and perverted it into a covenant of bondage. Yes, God intended grace and revealed grace in the Sinaitic covenant. Let me prove this in four ways.
Redemption brought them into a relationship, which they were to show appreciation for by thankful obedience. And as if that wasn’t enough, God underlined it again in Exodus 20, when just before giving the moral law, He said: “I am the Lord your (relationship) God which brought you out of the land of Egypt (redemption)” (v.2 ff), before saying, “You shall…You shall not” (v. 3ff). Again, redemption and relationship come before rules to express thankfulness.
Third, the Sinai covenant points to our need of grace. In the previous chapter, Paul argues strongly that the law was not intended to disannul or cancel the promise of grace (Gal. 3:17, 19, 21). He begins by asserting that the Gospel of Abraham was a Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Gal. 3:6-9). But he then goes on to prove that the Gospel of Moses was also a Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.He argues this from ordinary human experience. He says that even human covenants cannot be cancelled or changed (v. 15). The implication is obvious: whatever the Mt Sinai covenant did, it did not cancel nor change the covenant promises to Abraham. As Paul says, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid” (Gal. 3:21).
So, if the law does not cancel, change or even oppose the Abrahamic promises of grace, what purpose does it have? Apart from revealing grace through the pictures of grace and the context of grace, as we have already argued, it also points to our need of grace. “Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (v. 19).A large part of the law’s purpose was to bring us to see our desperate need for the promise and to lead us, as a disciplinary guardian, to the promise “that we might be justified by faith” (v. 24). The law of circumcision served the same purpose for Abraham. And now that Christ has come, and faith has come in such greater measure, there is no longer the same need for circumcision and the ceremonies (vv. 25-26).
Fourth, the Sinai covenant shows how we are to respond to grace. The great statements about God’s gracious redemption bringing Israel into a gracious relationship with Him (Ex. 19:4; 20:1-2), are followed by a great divine “therefore obey” (Ex. 19:5: 20:3-4). Having redeemed them and brought them into a relationship with Him, God gives them rules to help them show their gratitude to Him and keep their relationship healthy. What grace that God should guide His people in this way. And as if that was not enough, He promises rewards for obeying in response to His grace (e.g. Ex. 19:5). Many look at these motivation clauses found throughout the Old Testament and say, “See, it’s all about works and reward.” But that fails to see that redemption and relationship came before any rules or reward.
The Gospel of Moses = The Gospel of Abraham
All this to prove that the Sinai covenant, rightly understood, was an administration of the covenant of grace. Or, to put it another way, the Gospel of Abraham was the Gospel of Moses. Jesus even presents the glorified Abraham as pointing sinners to Moses and the prophets for the way of salvation (Luke 16:29-31). And we are told four times in Hebrews 11 (vs. 24, 27, 28, 29) that Moses walked by faith. In fact we are specifically told that he had saving faith in Christ (v. 26). Would he really be party to a system of religion that pointed people away from salvation by grace to salvation by works?
So then, you do not subscribe to the concept that the Law of Moses, while an administration of the Covenant of Grace (along with the other points you made above), also contained within it a republication (for pedagogical purposes) of the Covenant of Works?
Ron: I think the terminology of a “republication of the covenant of works” is unhelpful and inaccurate. There is law in both the covenant of works and in the covenant at Sinai. However the purposes were quite different. The law in the covenant of works was given with a view to earning “life.” The law in the Sinaitic covenant was given to show us our need of “life” and to help us show our gratitude for “life.” Introducing “covenant of works” language into the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace risks huge confusion.
If, as you say, the Law of Moses was given to show us our need of life, does that not assume that we have lost that life because we failed to earn it by keeping the Covenant of Works? And if this is the case, wouldn’t we expect to find that particular truth taught in the Law of Moses? And in order to communicate that we have failed to keep the Covenant of Works, wouldn’t it be necessary for the Law of Moses to restate the terms of that Covenant, in order to avoid misunderstanding? And if Christ kept the Covenant of Works on our behalf, does that not necessarily imply that the Covenant of Works remained in effect so that He could keep it? And aren’t all these concepts captured in Paul’s declaration, “But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them’” (Gal. 3:12; cf. Lev. 18:5)?
Ron: I appreciate your feedback. Most of any progress I’ve made in understanding covenant theology has come through interaction like this. So, I’m very grateful to you.One problem I have with using covenant of works terminology for the Mosaic covenant concerns the issue of divine intention. With the Edenic covenant of works, there was the real possibility of “life” being earned. With the universal spread of sin, that simply was not possible with the Sinai covenant. Therefore God did not give the law of Moses as a covenant of works. “Do this and live” was given to show that no one could do and no one could live. (Alternatively, I have seen it argued that “Do this and live” described the reward given by God to those already in covenant with him.) The law existed before the covenant of works and it existed after it. In the covenant of works, the Lord graciously promised a reward for obedience that was already due to him. The law in the Sinai covenant is simply a summary of the moral law that existed even before the covenant of works was instituted.My second problem with COW terminology for the Mosaic covenant is that it obscures (or at least confuses) the gracious nature of the Sinai covenant.