The Law Is Not of Faith: A Salvation-Historical Interpretation

I’ve been asked to explain (in the light of my previous post) what Paul meant when he said that “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12). To do that I need to offer an explanation for Gal 3:11: “But it is clear that by the law no one is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith.”

The law in question in Gal 3:11 is not law in general but specifically the law of Moses. When Paul says by the law no one is justified before God, I do not take this as being a temporally universal statement. The timeframe of the present tense of the verb translated as is justified must be determined from the context in which it is found; and in this particular context the timeframe of the verbal action is delimited by Paul’s eschatological understanding of Hab 2:4, which is quoted at the end of the verse.

Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11 is the same as in Rom 1:17. I have argued previously (see “Paul's Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: The Righteous Will Live by Faith”) that Paul understood Hab 2:4 as being a prophecy of the new covenant, which would be a time when righteousness would be defined in terms of a positive response to the eschatological revelation of the gospel instead of by means of a positive response to the Mosaic revelation (which is how righteousness was defined under the Mosaic covenant).

In other words, Paul is saying in Gal 3:11 that it is clear from Hab 2:4, which prophesied that covenant righteousness in the eschatological age would be defined in terms of faith, that in the new covenant age no one is able to be justified by a covenantal commitment or adherence to the law of Moses. In other words, Hab 2:4 effectively prophesied that a doctrine of justification by faith would apply in the new covenant age (on analogy with how righteousness was defined for Gentile Abraham).

This then leads us to Gal 3:12: “But the law is not of faith, but the one who has done these things will live by them.” Both clauses of this verse contrast with the content of Hab 2:4. Paul wants to contrast the eschatological faith spoken of in Hab 2:4 with the holistic faith response (i.e., the works of the law) required under the Mosaic covenant.

Now we need to say at this point that there is evidence that the law of Moses did require faith (see my previous post “The Paradox of Faith and Law: Is the Law of Faith or Not?”), but we also need to say that the faith that applied with respect to Mosaic torah was a Mosaic type of faith. The faith that Paul has in mind in Gal 3:12 is the faith that is defined in Hab 2:4, i.e., an eschatological type of faith. By saying that the law is not of faith, Paul is saying that the positive response to God’s revelation that was required under the Mosaic covenant was the response of saying amen to the whole of Mosaic torah, and this contrasts with the new covenant response of saying amen to eschatological, Messianic revelation, which is the gospel. As noted above, saying amen to the law of Moses is faith (in terms of how the ancient Hebrews thought of it); but being a holistic idea, this faith was characteristically talked about using the language of obedience. Paul’s quotation of Lev 18:5 shows this. Leviticus 18:5, properly understood, is simply saying that a commitment to obeying Mosaic torah was the way of blessing and eternal life for Israel according to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. The typical orthodox (Old Testament) Hebrew way of thinking was that Israel’s covenant obligation was that of obedience to the law, which was an obedience that could be performed if the law was written on the heart. This Mosaic way of thinking is encapsulated in Lev 18:5. Paul is quoting Lev 18:5 in a perfectly valid Jewish manner. Both he and his Jewish opponents accepted that covenantal obedience to torah was the way of righteousness and life under the Mosaic covenant (see also Rom 10:5).

So, by saying that the law is not of faith Paul is really trying to distinguish the required response to old covenant revelation from the required response to new covenant revelation. Old covenant revelation was the law of Moses; new covenant revelation is the gospel. The law of Moses is not the gospel. The law of Moses testifies to the gospel (Rom 3:21); but the gospel per se, and faith in this gospel, could only be proclaimed once the Messiah had been revealed to Israel (hence Paul’s reasoning in Gal 3:23-25). The gospel as the revelation of the righteousness of God is apart from the law (Rom 3:21). The law and the gospel are two interrelated, mutually consistent, but distinct revelations. Strictly speaking, the gospel could not be proclaimed until the Son of God had been revealed (Heb 1:1-2), and the Messianic victory won.

In other words, Paul’s point in Gal 3:12 is that the law of Moses and its required response of obedience is not the eschatological revelation that requires faith, about which Habakkuk prophesied. The law of Moses required obedience (a Mosaic type faith). It did not require an eschatological (Abrahamic) type faith. In effect, in Gal 3:12 Paul proves from the Hebrew Scriptures that his Jewish opponents’ teaching that the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations were still normative for salvation (even after the resurrection of Christ) is out of step with the teaching of the Old Testament prophets, who foresaw, upon the coming of Christ, a new covenant based on a new revelation, which necessarily requires a new definition of what constitutes faith or covenant obedience. The law of Moses prophesied about the Messiah, but it did not proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, for in the Mosaic age Jesus of Nazareth had not yet been born or revealed to Israel. The law of Moses is not eschatological revelation. The law of Moses is not the (eschatological) gospel. In this sense, therefore, the law is not of faith.

The Paradox of Faith and Law: Is the Law of Faith or Not?

There are some who, following Gal 3:12, say that the law was not of faith. I can say that too, but the question is what do we all mean when we say that. Some scholars understand the idea that the law is not of faith to mean that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant that operated on the basis of works, which determined solely the temporal blessing of Israel in the land; eternal blessing was to be found in the Abrahamic covenant, and was to be inherited by faith alone. There are yet other scholars who take the Mosaic covenant to be a covenant of works that demanded perfect obedience from Israel, which means that Israel inevitably could not keep the covenant with God.

I agree that the language of obedience and doing dominates in the section of the Pentateuch that deals with the Mosaic covenants (i.e., Exod 19–Deut 34). I think that we must say that the Mosaic covenant demanded the works of the law (Deut 6:25; Ezek 18:5-9; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12). But it is not as if the language of faith is not employed at all in relation to the Mosaic covenants in the Old Testament. A classic case in point is the author of Ps 119 calling obedience to the Mosaic law the way of faith (Ps 119:30). He also identifies the law of Moses as the object of his faith: “I believe in your commandments” (Ps 119:66).

The key to sorting out this issue, I believe, lies in understanding that faith was typically viewed in a holistic way by Moses and the prophets. The consequence of this is that, under the Mosaic covenants, faith and obedience end up being co-relative concepts. Paying attention to Old Testament anthropology, in particular the role of the heart as the integrating center of the human psyche, is important for understanding why a holistic concept of faith was employed by Moses and the prophets.

So, the law is not of faith, but in another sense it is. It is interesting that when Jesus forcefully critiqued the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23, he accused them of hypocrisy for being particular about the law of tithing but neglecting the weightier matters of the law: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt 23:23).

It is significant that Jesus views faith/faithfulness as being one of the important ethical truths prescribed by the law. It is also important to note in this regard that Jesus’ language does not allow the law to be bifurcated, enabling us to single out faith as operating on a level of its own, separate from the law or the commandments. Faith is spoken of here by Jesus on a par with justice and mercy as the human response required as Israel’s covenant obligation—the parallels with Mic 6:8 are intriguing. And faith, along with justice and mercy, and tithing, are equally (according to Jesus’ teaching in this verse) what the law commanded Israel to do. Jesus clearly says that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law that Israel was to do: “these it is necessary to do, while not leaving aside those.” In other words, Jesus is saying that faith was commanded as part of the law of Moses.

The law is not of faith, but … it is!

The paradox of continuity and discontinuity strikes again.