New Testament reality
New Covenant,
New Testament, Paul's teaching, Galatians, the Law
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How
does Paul's teaching in the New Testament fit with separate Old and Sinai
covenants?
Let's
look at some of Paul's New Testament scriptures that some think indicate the
Ten Commandments are no longer of critical importance for Christians.
This is not intended to be a complete
treatise on this matter, but to just hit the highlights where the law or the
covenant may seem to be the focus of the subject .
It's not my purpose to go through every example
that people have ever used. However, a
jump-start showing how these arguments melt away,
seems in order. A little bit of
background and the proper understanding of the covenants, make a big
difference.
Works of the Law
Galatians
2:16, "...a man is not justified by the works of the law ... ". Here is a
great example of the Jews including their oral tradition as part of the
law. Paul certainly knew better, but
what he said was perfectly clear in the context of
his time.
This
statement made by Paul was part of a tongue-lashing given to Peter.
Peter had just proved himself a hypocrite
by not eating with some Gentiles in the Antioch
congregation (vs.12). Peter withdrew
himself from the Gentiles because of some Jewish guests and the Jewish tradition that prohibited an
observant Jew from eating with a Gentile. This prohibition is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.
Paul in no uncertain terms says these types
of "works of the law", or really 'works of law', do not justify anyone.
Refraining from eating meals with Gentiles is nowhere
recommended in the Law of Moses let alone the Law of God .
Neither of these codes of law is under
discussion. What is under discussion is
the tradition of the Jews. Yet in
ignorance people have assumed Paul was casting a shadow over the Law of Moses
and the Sinai covenant. In reality
neither is part of the discussion. Peter is being criticized for bowing to the traditions of men at the
expense of Gentile believers.
Confusion
is also eliminated by the Dead Sea scroll known as 4QMMT, which is the only
other document roughly contemporary with Paul found that uses a phrase
similar to 'works of the law' (Gr. ergon nomou). Although that document is written in Hebrew (Paul remember was a
Hebrew) it clearly indicates the phrase refers to extra-scriptural customs
practiced or encouraged probably by the Qumran community .
Actually their 'miqsat
ma'ase HaTorah' (works
of the Law) were intended to keep the Qumran community in compliance with the
covenant as they understood it and separate
from other Jews and probably especially the Pharisees.
This
document refers to various subjects like the construction of pots and jugs,
the handling of liquids, treatment of bones, and unborn animals .
It clearly says 'we think' such and such
and 'we consider' such and such and 'we say' such and such .
It also says "And you know that we
have separated from the masses of the people... and from mingling with them in
these matters and from being in contact with them in these matters. "This indicates they have separated
themselves from other Jews, not in issues of the Ten Commandments, or even
the Law of Moses, but because of their own ideas on how to handle clean and
unclean things.
They
call these matters of the Law. "We
have also written to you (sing.) concerning some of
the observances of the Law (miqsat ma'ase ha-torah), which we think are beneficial to you
and your people." (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p227
some reference markings not included) However they are not appealing to the Law, but expressing their
opinion on peripheral issues. The
equivalent Greek phrase is used in other places in Galatians .
It refers to traditions outside of
scripture.
The Law was added
Galatians
3:19; "What purpose then does the law
serve? It was added because of
transgressions." This is fairly obviously referring to the Moab covenant and the
Law of Moses, but let's go through the preceding context to clarify
what is being said.
First
let's remember that beginning at Galatians 3:10 'the law' takes the standard
definition of Law of Moses, i.e., the Pentateuch .
Keeping this law did not justify anyone,
but it allowed all the sinners to continue living .
The purpose of the Moab covenant was not to
provide salvation, but to prevent their physical death as a result of
disobedience to the Covenant of the Lord. Christ has now taken the penalty, resulting from not continuing
consistently in the law, upon himself .
Now, even the Gentiles can receive of the
promise given to Abraham.
Galatians 3:15; covenants are not added to or annulled .
This is undoubtedly why Hebrews is not
clearly saying even the old covenant is totally dead .
It was growing old and was about to vanish.
Vs. 16; the promises came to Abraham and his Seed (singular)
through faith, when we live by faith as Abraham did (vs. 14 see also vss.6-7).
Actually, it was a combination of faith and action. Abraham actually received
the promises of the covenant because he obeyed (Gen 26:1-5). He obeyed because
he believed. Faith allows one to obey. Faith without evidential action
accomplishes nothing, is dead (Jas 2:17, 20).
Vs.
17; "the law, which was
430 years later", (after the promise came to Abraham) is the Sinai
covenant. (Ex 12:40). Although this is
not clear in most Old Testament translations, Paul's statement here when
compared with the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch indicates that the
sojourn before Israel entered Egypt is included in this
430 years too. "And the sojourning of the children of
Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan, was
four hundred and thirty years." (Ex 12:40 LXX).
So
the 430 years is indeed from the time of the promise to Abraham, until Israel
left Egypt, exactly 430 years later. The law of vs. 17 then would be the Sinai covenant, since it was
confirmed within 60 days of when Israel left Egypt .
This qualification precludes this law from
being the Law of Moses, but connects it to the Sinai covenant .
In any case, that law, the Sinai Covenant, cannot annul the
promise made to Abraham by covenant.
Vs, 18; If the inheritance is by law it is not of promise,
but Abraham received by promise. This
verse is not specific in defining 'law'. Although many translations use 'the law' here, the definite article is
not included in the original Greek text. This verse is not being specific and 'any law' more accurately
reflects the original text. This
non-specific meaning can be seen in the Twentieth Century New Testament,
The Emphasized Bible, and The Englishman's Greek New Testament.
Vs 19; So, what then was the purpose of the Law? This reference is specific, uses the
definite article in the original Greek, and reverts again to the standard
definition, i.e., the Law of Moses. It
was added because of transgression. And indeed that is reflected in the historical account of Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It was added over 39 years after the Sinai covenant and was confirmed
about 470 years after the promises to Abraham. It added to Israel, the Levitical
priesthood and sacrifices that brought the promise of forgiveness.
There is no promise of forgiveness in the
Sinai covenant. It was not added because of transgressions. The Sinai covenant
assumed obedience. However they didn't obey. Indeed they deserved death .
The Moab covenant, the Law, was added to handle their past, present and future transgressions. This
reference is talking of the Law of Moses, the Moab Covenant.
Clearly the context around the verse
supports this.
This
also ought to make it clear the law was not a 100% repeating or explaining of
the Sinai covenant, which was made 430 years after the promises .
The law was added 39+ years later to
include provisions for handling transgressions of that covenant .
However one does not add to a covenant,
(vs. 15). Therefore the law had to be
made into a second covenant as described in Deuteronomy 29-31 .
The
law was added. It was an addition,
some of which was temporary, until the Seed would come to whom the promise
was made, i.e. the Messiah. Discontinuing the law as a binding covenant does not discontinue the
Covenant of the Lord that predated the law and the covenant of Moab.
Neither does discontinuing the Law as a
binding covenant mean that it is "done away" as defined by traditional
Christianity. Within a few verses Paul
will clarify the new relationship a true Christian will have with the
Law. It is not absolute authority as
it was before Messiah, but neither is it to be cast aside.
Notice
the wording Paul uses, "It
was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the
promise was made" .
When did the seed come? Jesus really 'came' when he started His
ministry. Yet many assume He 'did
away' with the law at His death, not when he came, but when he left for a
place no one else could follow (John 13:36). Paul, on the other hand was familiar with the words of Moses.
"The
LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from
your brethren. Him you shall hear"
(Deu 18:15). Jesus was to be the authority above the Law as soon as he began to
speak regarding it. Indeed He did
exercise this authority. (Mat 19:7-8)
Jeremiah
7:22, "For I did not speak to your
fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of
Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices...' .
At the general time period when Israel was
brought out of Egypt no commandment required sacrifices .
God preferred obedience .
Yet they did not obey and went
backward. This is why the Moab
covenant was added. There needed to be
an agreement on how to atone for sin, short of the death of the sinner .
They simply didn't have the heart to obey.
This
area of Galatians also reinforces the separateness of the Sinai covenant from
the Moab Covenant. It specifically
identified the law that was made at Sinai, 430 years after the original
promise to Abraham. That was a very important law. However, what the
New Testament Christians and Jews commonly called "The Law" was based on and
delivered to the Levites and became law at the confirmation of the Moab
covenant, almost 40 years after the Sinai covenant (Heb 7:11, Deut 31:9,
1:1-5, 31:24-26). That Law was added to deal with transgressions. The designation
"that
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later" (Gal 3:17b) distinguishes the law of the Sinai covenant from the law
that was added later. "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of
the covenant of the LORD your God" (Deu 31:26ab). Although there are two distinct
laws typically the Jews did not distinguish since the Law of Sinai was included
in what was commonly called ‘the Law’.
Kept under
the Law
Although
those who minimize the Law of God do not rely on Galatians 3:23 heavily, it
is instructive in our study. The KJV
Bible uses the words 'kept under the law'. The Phillips translation says "imprisoned under the power of the Law' .
Some understandably think this indicates a
loss of freedom from which they are relieved with the New Covenant .
Is this the thought that Paul intended?
The
NKJV translates this phrase, "kept under guard by the law" .
The Greek word in question here is phroureo. According to the Liddell and Scott Greek English Lexicon it
means "keep, watch or guard" and "to keep watch
over". Thayer's lexicon lists the
primary meaning as, "to guard, protect, by a military guard, either in
order to prevent hostile invasion, or to keep the inhabitants of a besieged
city from flight".
The
word is used again in II Cor 11:32 where the
governor is posting guards throughout a city to look for someone .
It is also used in Philippians 4:7, where
the peace of God keeps
our hearts, and 1Peter 1:5 where believers are being kept or protected by God .
This guarding is not for the purpose of
restricting, but for the purpose of protection .
What Paul is saying here is that the Law
was implemented as an extra precaution to protect and keep Israel until they
could have access to the faith that was to come.
One could deduce that the guards were the
Levites.
During
the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness it became painfully obvious to God
that Israel simply did not have the heart, faith or ability to walk in His
ways (Deut. 8:5-6, 5:29). The Law was
given in an attempt to define more precisely for Israel how to conduct
itself. It also provided for a human
representative whose job it was to know the ways of God .
They could consult with the Levite if they
had any questions. The intent was to
keep them from wondering off the path until they were given the heart and the
faith that they needed to walk the path without such an aid .
Being released from custody allows us to
prove we can walk in the law of God without the aid of the Levite .
Under a tutor
"But
after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Galatians
3:25). Some try to use Paul's
explanation of the law being a tutor to prove that we no longer need the
law. Although Galatians is a Greek
document it is referring to a Hebrew document .
We need to remember that there is no native
word in the Hebrew language for 'law'. 'Torah' which is typically the word that would have been used by
Hebrew speakers means more correctly, 'instruction' .
However it is certainly reasonable to treat
God's instruction as law. It was
considered the constitution of the Jews. Of course it is also the common name of the Pentateuch, the Law of
Moses. Can we ignore God's
instruction?
The
word for 'tutor' likened to the law here is the Greek word, 'paidagogos' .
"Among the Greeks and Romans the name was
applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising
the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class." (Thayer's
Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament )
The paidagogos
particular aim was to improve the soul, and to train his charge to a virtuous
not an intellectual life. (See:
William Barclay New Testament Words. P206-209).
These
trusted slaves were protectors and moral educators to the sons of wealthy
people until the sons reached adulthood. When the charge reached legal age the paidagogos
was no longer responsible for the boy. However if the paidagogos had done
his job, the boy would not have suddenly repudiated everything he was
taught. As adults do we no longer need
manners or morals? Typically the
slave/tutor and his charge had a very close relationship, and the slave
remained a trusted advisor for the rest of his life.
The slave was acting in the place we would
put the parents today. Should it be a
surprise that a responsible adult child would sometimes seek the advice of
the paidagogos?
(See further: "Novum
Testamentum", vol 29,
1987, "Paidagogos: The Social Setting",
by N.H.Young p174)
So like the function of this tutor, the law kept Israel
under protective custody, (Gal 3:23) until maturity.
If we are mature believers we should fully
understand the application and intent of the law.
We no longer then, automatically follow the
letter of the law by rote, because we understand the spirit and intent.
The spirit and intent are not in opposition
to the letter, but are in agreement. Intent is simply at a higher plane because it allows the instruction
to be applied correctly to situations that the letter might not specifically
address.
We
put our faith in Christ. We don't
primarily depend on ourselves to provide for our protection and daily
living. This allows us the confidence
to know that we can fully keep the intent or at least make progress toward
that end. All of those detailed
regulations that required helping the poor, being impartial in judgment, respectful
of employees, slaves and foreigners, and fair in business dealings even with
people we don't necessarily consider friends; all those selfless actions are
now understood to be the way God would have us live, because that is the best
way. That conduct is good for others
and good for us even if it seems to put us at risk. If we do it God's
way, He will take care of us. Faith enables and promotes obedience. Jesus
lived that way. He will keep us if we
walk in His ways.
Neither
the Sinai covenant nor the covenant of the Lord is even under discussion in
this account of the tutor. Both
predated the law and are not affected by the coming of the 'Seed', Jesus
Christ, (Gal 3:19). As we saw, the Law
has no legal connection with the Covenant of the Lord.
The law is the instruction, or old
covenant, that was attempting to keep Israel within the terms of the Covenant
of the Lord spoken at Sinai. If we
understand and live by the intent of the words of the Covenant of the Lord,
the words of the law, or old covenant, are redundant.
However, if there were a question, we would
do well to consult with a trusted advisor. The Law may hold helpful or pertinent examples in this case.
Unfortunately,
much time has passed and we have lost a complete understanding of the times
of Moses and the Exodus. Thankfully we
have the law, the books of Moses, to fill in details we would otherwise not
know. Actually we would be very
ignorant of the way of God without the Law.
Elements of the World
Some
think that 'elements of the world'
in Galatians 4:3 refers to the law of Moses. Of course the Law of Moses was hardly enforced worldwide.
However Paul included everyone as 'we' in
this discussion (Gal 3:28). Certainly
all the Gentile population of Galatia had not lived under the Law of
Moses. "Elements of the world" then is
referring to the customs of society, not the Law of Moses.
Under
the Law
Now
Jesus was born under the Moab covenant, the law (Gal 4:4), to redeem or buy
back those who were subject to that covenant. But not only did Christ redeem those under the law, but he also opened the way for the rest of the
nations to be made clean before God as well (Eph 2:12-13).
Can we then ignore the Covenant of the
Lord? God forbid! The Ten Commandments specifically define
sin (Rom 7:7, Ex 20:20). Because we can be
forgiven, doesn't mean we can ignore God's instruction (Rom 6:15).
It
was impossible that the sacrifices they offered could make them
complete/perfect (Heb 10:1-4). That
was a problem needing remedy. That was the purpose of Christ's'
sacrifice. Messiah, Christ, came to do the will of the Father.
Having done that and since He created mankind under the direction of the
Father He was a spotless offering, which could be applied to the
whole world, not only the Jews. It atoned for everyone since He
was the Creator of all (Col 1:15-16). Messiah replaced the offerings prescribed in the Law establishing His
own.
Christ
did the will of the Father (Heb 10:7, John 5:30). He set the example of
obedience. His sacrifice can wash us clean, but if we are to be the
child of the Father we must live like our elder Brother and keep ourselves
clean (I John 1:7). True children of the Father will come to the full
stature of Jesus Christ (Eph 4:13). So we can all be restored and
adopted by the Father (Gal 4:5). It is only those who do His will that
are accepted and adopted (Mat 7:21).
Adoption
in the Greco-Roman world is an interesting study.
The purpose was not like today, mainly to
provide a home for orphans. The
relationship was born out of more of a mentor relationship, on steroids, so
to speak. Often the adoptee was a
full-grown adult. Upon adoption the
son left his old life for a completely new one.
Any debts he had were cancelled, as the
original person no longer existed. The
new son was then expected to totally embrace the new father and his way of
life. "I will put My law in their
minds, and write it on
their hearts : and I will be their God and they shall be My
people." (Jer 31:33).
(See, Adoption as Sons of God, by
James Scott)
Anyone truly living under the new covenant will strive to
think like God thinks, and act as God would act as a human.
The record we have of the life of Jesus is the foremost example. Among other
things he was fully Torah observant. At His trial there was no fault found in Him except that He claimed to
be whom He was (Mat 26:57-66).
Does this mean everyone needs to be fully Torah observant
and obey the Law of Moses? The
intention of the Father has always been that we obey the Covenant of the
Lord, i.e. His Law. If that is written
in our heart such that we obey it, we will be in compliance with the intent
of the Law of Moses too. However, we should
diligently seek to understand the mind of God (Heb 11:6).
Western society has experienced years of
flawed understanding and been cut off from God for centuries.
We should be diligent to study and
ponder the Law of God.
We would be entirely derelict to not also
carefully examine the Law of Moses to glean the extra detail it includes so we can
better understand the Law of God.
A
number of times in Galatians (4:4, 5, 21, 5:18) Paul makes
a statement about people being 'under the law'.
He also uses this expression in Romans
6:14. Now that we understand a bit
more about what the law is and what it is not, we can certainly understand
that, whether or not we are 'under the law', has no effect on the status of
the Covenant of the Lord and the definition of sin.
Although included in the terms of the Moab
covenant, the Covenant of the Lord stands by itself.
It is clarified in the Sinai covenant
by Exodus 21-23:19. It predates the
law, and is not void because the Law, the Moab covenant, is served by an
inferior priesthood (Heb 7:12), or any other reality that has caused the
Law to become unworkable as a covenant.
Romans
chapter six is not attempting to be instructive about the law.
The whole chapter is about avoiding
sin. It indicates this over and over
again (cf. vss. 1, 2, 4f, 6, 7, 11-13).
Then, vs. 14, "For sin shall not have
dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace".
This is attempting to encourage believers
after they have sinned. There is no
way sin can have dominion, or own them, if they don't sin.
That is not the issue.
Only if they sin, does sin have any hope to
hold power over them. If there is no
Moab covenant and no Covenant
of the Lord, there is no sin and no need for grace.
".. sin is not imputed when there is no
law" (Rom 5:13b)
Only
after sinning is it shown that sin has any power over them.
However because the blood of Christ can wash
our sin clean, we need not offer the sin offering prescribed by the law (Lev
4-7, Heb 10:11-18). We are not under
that administration.
For
the Roman believers this must have been an incredible relief.
They were not required to cart their
offering half way around the Mediterranean to the temple in Jerusalem in
order to be made right before God. Many would simply not have been able to make that trip.
Now, we can all receive forgiveness simply
for the asking after repenting and changing our ways. If we grasp what
our Creator is trying to accomplish, our heart yearns to love God and
participate in His Covenant. We reject our old way and walk in the
light just like Messiah was in the light.
Lest
someone think I'm trying to slip something by, I will point out that Romans
6:14 does not have the Greek definite article
associated with 'law'. So it really
does not say 'under the Law', but 'under law' just as the NKJV translates
it. However where Paul uses this
expression in Gal 4:21 the NKJV does translate it 'under the law' even though
there is no definite article in that case either.
The context in Gal 4:21 is
clear. Paul is chiding those who wish
to be 'under law' to listen to 'the law'. In the latter instance the definite article is present.
It is apparent 'the Law' of Moses is the
law they wish to be under.
However
as we will soon see we are not under the administration of the Sinai covenant
either.
Ministry of Death
II
Corinthians 3:7 is sometimes used to condemn the Ten Commandments written on stones
as a law of death. "But if the
ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the
children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of
the glory of his countenance, which was passing away".
A careful reading will find that it
is not the Sinai Law that is under discussion here, but the ministry of
Moses. It is referring to the function
Moses was performing.
"Ministry"
in this verse is a translation of the Greek word, "diakonia".
It refers especially "to those who execute
the commands of others". Specifically,
in this case, it is the "office of Moses", (Thayer p137).
This verse tells us that the functionaries
in place to administer the Sinai covenant and the law are passing away.
Jesus Christ, our High Priest replaced
them. The Sinai covenant itself is not
under discussion.
Verses
8-11, & 13 all contrast Moses ministry, function or administration with
the ministry, function or administration of the spirit.
Moses was the chief human judge of Israel
and it sometimes fell his lot to dictate the penalty
for breaking of the then current law.
Too often that penalty was death.
Under the Sinai covenant especially,
there was often no other option. Even
under the administration of the Moab covenant, the law, death was required
too. Fortunately it was not always the
death of the human involved. Later,
during Jesus life the administration was done by the Sadducees, or scribes,
and the Pharisees, "...The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." (Mat
23:2, Ex 18:14).
Before
the Moab covenant was confirmed, Moses directly administered the covenant between God and
Israel. As that law was written, you
could make restitution for stealing, or help restore someone to health who
you had a hand in injuring, but most other offenses resulted in death.
When the Moab covenant was confirmed Israel
came under the Law. Atonement could be
obtained with the blood of an animal.
"All who sin apart from the law will perish
apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the
law. 13 For it is not those who hear
the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law
who will be declared righteous" (Rom 2:12-13 NIV). Those that obey are declared
righteous. If they miss the mark they are forgiven by means
of a blood sacrifice. Their sin is
forgiven preventing the separation from God one would normally expect.
However, if they do not recognize Jesus
blood as applying to them they can only be forgiven by means of the sacrifice
of the law.
Paul
then goes on to explain that the gentiles that are not schooled in the law
nevertheless have some of God's law written in their heart, (vs 15) because in some ways they conduct themselves
according to the law. It is clear that
having the law written in the heart is evidenced by the believer doing, that
which is enjoined in the law.
With
the new covenant, we can accept Jesus blood as our atonement, which provides
a better means of grace and forgiveness.
"For this is My blood of the
new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" (Mat 26:28). "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he
might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17). Jesus died to provide a better means of forgiveness, not to void 'My
Covenant', which defines sin.
By accepting Jesus sacrifice we should be acknowledging that we understand
we are guilty and worthy of death. We should be anxious to cast off that
destructive behavior and turn to serve our new master, Jesus Christ. We
should then live to represent Him 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If we
are failing in this, we have not truly repented. This could be because we
don’t fully understand His ways or His Law. That is why the subject of this
document is vital to understand.
The
better promises of the new covenant include especially forgiveness, Jeremiah
31:34. "...For
I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more". Of
course this follows immediately after Jeremiah 31:31-33 where Hebrews got the
very concept of the New Covenant.
We
are not responsible to the Sinai covenant as administered by Moses.
We are not responsible to the Law as administered by the Levites. That law
attempted to keep them in reasonable compliance with the original Sinai covenant and
especially the Covenant of the Lord, but Israel never really 'got it'.
Since Jesus came He set the example and properly interpreted the Law and the prophets.
If we recognize Him and wish to take up His
challenge to be complete as the Father is complete (Mat 5:48), we accept His
sacrifice and go and sin no more. The
Covenant of the Lord is forever (Ps 111:9, 5). The New Covenant, His Law, is
written on the heart, so it is actually kept by the faithful believer in the full intent.
On
rare occasions a believer might sin (I John 2:1). If we do sin, sin will not own us, for we
are not under any law as written on paper, but we are under the administration
of grace. Who we obey is whose servants we are (Rom 6:16).
Therefore we willingly yield ourselves to the Law of God. God forbid that we
would willingly sin."I
will put My law in their minds, and write it on their
hearts , and I will be their God, and they shall be My
people (Jer
31:33b, Heb 8:10b).
Under
the Sinai law if someone was not careful to protect his fellows from a known
dangerous situation and someone was killed as a result, the one responsible,
who knew of the situation, was liable for the death.
In that case the one responsible was to be
put to death (Ex 21:29). Certainly the
principle behind this law still applies. If we are aware of and responsible for a dangerous situation, which
then results in someone's death, the Sinai covenant dictates we be put to
death. "You shall not murder" (Ex 20:13).
However,
because of the incredible grace and mercy of God, we are not under the law as
written in the Sinai covenant if we acknowledge Jesus as Savior and example.
We must repent of our own ways and diligently seek to live as He lived.
The covenant of the Lord is administered
differently than it was under Moses in the Sinai covenant. However if we
grasp the new covenant we will have the Covenant of the Lord written in our
heart. We will be anxious to obey that
law in the spirit and the letter. We
will not be careless and cause injury to anyone.
We
will keep dangerous animals securely contained.
We will drive our cars with courtesy and
caution. We will not allow hazardous situations to develop around our homes
or in our workplaces. We will properly
handle dangerous substances. We will
go to the same lengths to honor all the other instruction of the Sinai
covenant as well. This demonstrates
our love of God and love toward our neighbor in its pure and full sense.
II Cor
3:14-16 is interesting. Paul likens
the veil that Moses had over his head, to the veil that covered the Jews when
reading the "Old Testament". (The
Greek word for testament is the same word as is used for covenant in Hebrews
8). Paul was unaware the Hebrew
scriptures would be called the 'Old Testament', since there was not yet a
'New Testament' when he wrote 2 Corinthians. 'Old Testament' here should really be translated 'old covenant'.
So when the Jews read the 'old covenant',
the Law or especially Deuteronomy, they didn't understand it.
When we truly turn to the Lord that veil is
taken away and we can then understand what the law has been saying for thousands
of years. Of course nowhere does the
Law of Moses indicate that the Covenant of the Lord is to be cast aside.
What
it does tell us is how to love, honor and respect God and how to respect and
love our neighbor. It gives specific
examples of how the Patriarchs exercised faith, and recommends we do the
same. It also gives bad examples, so
we can learn what not to do. It's all
there if one reads it carefully and applies the principles, or spirit of what
is being said.
"...but
our sufficiency is from God, 6
who
also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter
but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (II Cor
3:5b-6) If we just read God's
instruction for the letter we will miss the point.
For instance Exodus 23:19 tells us to not seethe a kid in its mother's milk, which
was a popular pagan tradition. If we
determine not to do that, but continue to pay homage to other pagan
traditions, we will have obeyed in the letter, but still be liable for
worshiping other gods, because we have missed the spirit.
Unfortunately, this was much of the problem
with ancient Israel. They read the
letter, but missed the spirit. The
veil Paul spoke of prevented them from completely understanding the intent of
the law. The result was ultimately
their death.
God spelled things
out more clearly in the Moab covenant. "When
the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land,
30. Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after
they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their
gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods?
I also will do likewise.'"
(Deut 12:29-30)
Some may still see, "written and engraved in stones" in II
Corinthians 3:7 and be confused. Although it is easy to connect this to the tablets of the covenant
Moses received in Exodus 34 that is not likely the case.
The Law of Moses was
etched into stones as Israel entered the Promised Land (Deu 27:8, Josh 8:32).
So thinking that Paul is specifically referring to the tablets of the covenant
of the Lord is an assumption. If Paul had been thinking of those tablets He
could have highlighted the significance of what he was saying by mentioning
the tablets written with the finger of God. Instead he chose to indicate
engraving. Etching into plaster, as was done by Israel, is a form of engraving.
It should also be
noted that 'was
glorious' also leaves out a significant thought in what Paul
said. Alternative translations are, "was
produced with glory" (EGNT) and "was brought into
existence with glory" (Emphasized Bible).
The word 'was' in the NKJV is actually
Greek 'gennaw' which means 'to
engender'. So the service of Moses was
brought into existence with glory as evidenced by the brightness of his
face. The covenant was not shown to
have been engendered or made glorious by the brightness of Moses face.
God made perfectly evident who He would use
to administer the covenant by the shining of Moses face.
In any case Paul is
saying that even Moses function written on stones was instituted with
glory. However Moses function was not
written on the tablets of the covenant (Ex 34:28, Deut 5:22).
Only the words God spoke from Sinai were
written on them. The context is
talking of Moses function. As such
these stones written in Israel would have had the administration of Levi
included in their text (Deut 17:9). The priests especially, but also Levi in general, inherited the 'seat
of Moses' after his death. Many
Levites served as judges. This text
written on these stones was from the covenant of Moab.
Of course, that is now the Old Covenant.
The context is also
contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant (vs
6, 14). It does not really mention the
covenant made at Sinai. However Moses
was especially the chief administrator of the Sinai covenant.
So the concept seems to apply.
However, Paul is not necessarily limiting
himself to that function during Moses lifetime.
He is talking of the institution or
beginnings of Moses office. He
indicates through the rest of the chapter that Moses office continued until
it was replaced by Christ. This was of
course 'Moses seat' that was occupied by the priesthood of Aaron and those
who inherited that office.(Mat 23:2)
The set of stones on
which Moses directed Israel write evidently the complete law of Deuteronomy
had the administration of Levi included in their text (Deu 17:9). The
priests especially, but also Levi in general, inherited the ‘seat of Moses’
after his death. Many Levites served as judges. This text written on these
stones was from the covenant of Moab. Of course, that is now the Old
Covenant.
Righteousness apart from the Law
Romans 3:21, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets...." Righteousness without the law is now possible. Was there righteousness, before the book of the Law was written?
'My
Covenant' was in effect from at least Genesis 6.
Just because the full terms weren't
detailed for us until Exodus 20, does not indicate hundreds of years passing
before the patriarchs were made aware of the terms.
They knew the terms in their time.
Abraham kept 'My law' (Gen
26:5). Joshua and the children of
Israel would have understood this as the Covenant of the Lord in particular
and the Sinai covenant in general. They would also have understood, "My Covenant" as spoken by
God (Gen 17:10), to be the same as, "His Covenant" as spoken by
Moses (Deut 4:13). The Books of Moses
were written especially to these people.
Notice Romans 3:21 says the Law and the Prophets witness to righteousness coming "apart from the law". If this is intending to mean the Covenant of the Lord is to be void, where is the witness in the Law or the Prophets?
What
the Law and the Prophets do indicate is that people will be freely forgiven.
(Jer 31:34) No longer will the Romans, for instance, be required to pack up their
goods and drag their offering half way around the Mediterranean to
Jerusalem. They can be made right with
God though, apart from the requirement of the Law of Moses.
They are made righteous by the cleansing
blood of Christ.
The
Law of Moses, as a covenant, is impossible to keep because the temple no
longer exists and the priests have been scattered. The understanding we can glean from what
was written in the law is however, invaluable in understanding the mind of
God. This includes the instruction on the sacrifices.
Without
the ability to offer sacrifices according to the law, what is the remedy for
someone who breaks the Covenant of the Lord? According to the Sinai covenant, usually death.
Fortunately for us all, by the
righteousness of God, He allows the sins of those who truly believe to be
cleansed by the blood of the one who created them (Rev 1:5, Luke 22:20).
We are not under the administration of the
Sinai law, as written, either.
Two covenant
allegory
The
allegory of the two covenants
of Galatians 4:21-31 would seem to indicate more strongly than anything else
that the Sinai covenant is to be, "cast out".
Indeed it seems odd that Paul would claim
that 'Hagar is Mount Sinai', and "the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to
bondage".
Nowhere else is there any hint that
the Covenant of the Lord engendered bondage.
Remember, Paul is talking to those who desire to be 'under
the law', vs. 21. This is clearly
referring to the Law of Moses. Paul
also refers to Hagar and Ishmael, both of whom are mentioned in the law, but
not the Sinai covenant.
Paul's
conclusion begins with Galatians 4:31. 'We
are not to be children of the bondwoman. Stand fast in the liberty of Christ, and don't be entangled in
bondage. If you become circumcised
Christ profits nothing.' Indeed almost half of
chapter five is then devoted to circumcision. Paul's main purpose is to show
circumcision as unnecessary.
However,
nowhere in the Sinai covenant is there any mention of circumcision.
The instruction is given while Israel was
still camped near Sinai (Lev 12:3) but it was after the golden calf so after the Sinai covenant was
confirmed. Of course it was assumed
this practice would be followed even before Israel left Egypt (Ex
12:44-48). However it was not
practiced the whole time Israel was in the wilderness after the Sinai
covenant was confirmed(Josh 5:2-9). For whatever
reason God chose not to include it in the terms of the Sinai covenant, nor
was he concerned that those born in the wilderness were not circumcised (Josh
5:5). He chose a different sign or token at Sinai. So was Paul mistaken
in making what appears to be a connection with the Sinai covenant?
Actually no. It is
our own confusion that makes this connection. Paul made the connection with the
area of Sinai not the covenant made at Sinai. Perhaps the symbol of a
mountain was important to him. The Moab covenant was confirmed on a plain (Deut 1:1).
Jerusalem, which Paul also ties closely
with Sinai, is of course, on a mountain. More likely though, Paul was referring not specifically to the
mountain, but to the general area of Sinai.
Mount
Sinai is also mentioned in Acts 7:30 & 38. In both these cases the
definite article is used. Each really refers to 'the Mount Sinai'. The definite article is not used in Paul's allegory.
It is therefore more than likely a general
reference to the area of Mt. Sinai, not the specific location or time of the giving
of the Sinai covenant. Indeed Malachi
4:4 confirms that God actually gave the Law of Moses to Moses in the area of Horeb or Sinai. "Remember
the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb
for all Israel."
Even
though the Law of Moses was not confirmed until Israel was about to enter the
Promised Land, the bulk of it was actually given to Moses in the area of Horeb. God did speak to Moses on the mountain (Lev 26:46,
27:34). He also spoke to Moses in the tent he set up just outside the camp
below the mountain (Ex 33:7-9). After the
tabernacle was constructed God dwelt in the tabernacle and spoke from there.
(Num 1:1, 7:89, 9:15) The great bulk
of the instruction that made up the Moab covenant came to Moses when Israel
was still camped around Sinai although after the Sinai covenant was confirmed
and after the episode of the golden calf.
Remember
they didn't leave until Numbers 10:11 & 33 almost a year after the Sinai
covenant was confirmed. Much of the
rest of Numbers describes their various adventures rather than rules and regulations.
Of course Deuteronomy, the words of the
Moab covenant, is a summary of their adventures and all the instruction Moses
had received. The bulk of this
instruction was received in the immediate area of Sinai.
So
we need to ask, what is Paul's purpose in the allegory of the two
covenants? This connection with Hagar, and some suppose, the covenant at Sinai is part of
an allegory. These things are by
definition something symbolic or fictitious. The root Greek word with which
Paul labels his instruction is allegoreo,
(Gal. 4:24) the very word from which our English word 'allegory' comes.
The symbols used, i.e. Hagar and Sinai, are
by definition, symbolic or fictitious. It is the point of the allegory that should instruct us.
Stand fast in the liberty Christ gives
us. Circumcision of the flesh does not
improve our spiritual standing with God. The symbols Paul used are of little significance.
The instruction should come from the point
Paul makes. Paul's purpose is to show
circumcision as unnecessary for gentiles. It is not attempting to cast a shadow on the Covenant of the Lord,
which doesn't dictate circumcision in the first place.
Any shadow that falls,
falls on the Law of Moses that actually does require circumcision.
A final Summarizing point
What
Romans, Galatians and Hebrews are all saying is that we are not under the
administration of especially the Moab covenant, the Law.
It is still instruction from God.
It is very useful, in some cases vital, for
understanding the Sinai covenant and the covenant of the Lord.
But it is not the final authority.
If the scroll that was placed beside the
ark of the covenant of the Lord deteriorates, what does that do to the covenant
of the Lord in the ark? The Covenant of the Lord is not void because a covenant
made 39 years after Sinai is superseded. It is still the Covenant of the
Lord. Fortunately though, how it is administered has changed.
We need to keep in mind that the Tabernacle
constructed near Sinai was patterned after the heavenly tabernacle (Heb
9:24). Typically two copies of covenant documents were made in a covenant.
One kept by the subjects and the other by the lord or suzerain. Revelation
11:19 states, "Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple." The indication in
scripture is that the Tabernacle Moses made and all the furnishings,
were a copy of the temple in heaven. His covenant has more than likely been
in this heavenly temple since time began and will remain there until at least
the time of the end. Indeed, sin is recorded in Genesis before Abraham was
party to his special relationship with God (Gen 4:7). The original ark in
which the heavenly version resides is still in His temple to this day.
Our High priest presides at the eternal temple of God.
He does not serve the shadow that the Levites served (Heb 8:1-5).
Even though the temple built in Jerusalem is destroyed
with all its furniture, the covenant of the Lord still holds its place of
honor at the throne of the Almighty.
A major purpose of the law was to keep Israel within
the bounds of the Sinai covenant (Gal 3:23). Even though we as believers
ought not to need a tutor, or older guardian (vs. 24), it behooves us to
remember what the tutor taught. We would be wise to make the law our trusted advisor, as
the paidagogos was to the mature heir. In
any case we should not make void the Covenant of the Lord.
It is imperative that we reject sin, if we slip
on rare occasions, our New Covenant is based on better
promises, with an ever-living High Priest sitting in the presence
of God who understands our difficulties and can renew us to the Father (Heb
4:15, I john 2:1).