Imperishable Inheritance

Why the Law Then?

Paul's discussion of the Law at the end of chapter 3 is redemptive-historical in nature. This means that Paul's teaching is in the light of redemptive history. Paul can express that Yahweh can change the covenants and associated stipulations as He sees fit in the unfolding of His redemptive plan.¹ Meredith Kline helps us here:

"Each inscripturated covenant is closed to alteration, subtraction, or addition by the vassals (as the proscriptions of the treaty document clauses insist); yet each is open to revision by the Suzerain, revision that does not destroy but fulfills, as the history of God's kingdom proceeds from one epochal stage to the next, particularly in the passage from the old covenant to the new."²

This is the focus I want to pass along in the content of this essay in my exegesis of Gal 3:23-25. Paul's focus is to give the reason as to why God even gave the law to the Israelites.

The Law came 430 years after the promise made to Abraham, and this covenant did not nullify the promise and covenant made with Abraham (3:17).³ It was important for Paul to show that salvation is always based on promise and not Law: "For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise" (3:18). The inheritance of salvation has always been granted by faith alone, in Christ alone, by promise alone.⁴

Paul then answers the rhetorical question: "Why the Law then?" If the inheritance is based on promise and never law then why would Yahweh even institute a law (legal) covenant? The Law was "was added because of transgressions" for Israel until Abraham's True Seed would be made manifest in history (3:19). The Law is not, however, contrary to the promises of God, but it has a specific purpose in seeing the promise come to completion (3:20). This time had "shut up everyone under sin" (3:22) and kept "under custody" until the Messiah came (3:23). Paul's shocking lesson is that instead of the law decreasing sin it actually stimulated the knowledge of sin and the need for justification for Israel (3:24).⁵

Contrasting Views on Galatians 3:23-25

Then, what I believe to be Paul's most important statement on the Law is given:

"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (3:23-25)

A few answers have been given as to what this passage has meant. I will go over the three major views, and I will conclude with the support of the position I feel is most true to Paul's teaching in this passage. The first perspective we shall tackle is that of the traditional reformed, then the personal tutor view, and finally the redemptive-historical view.

Traditional Reformed Exegesis⁶

The reformed tradition has, for the most part, viewed the Mosaic Law as having a three fold distinction (moral, civil, ceremonial). There are two camps who espouse this position among reformed theologians. The first are theonomists who believe that the only law that has passed is the "ceremonial law" of sacrifices and Old Covenant worship.⁷ The second, more widely espoused position is that the "moral law" (which is the Decalogue according to this interpretation) has passed into the New Covenant. Even though theonomy is in much larger error than the former, I will focus on their interpretations together, because they both rest largely on the same theological presuppositions. The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith espouses the traditional reformed position.⁸

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. (19:3)

The "besides" is talking about what from the Mosaic Law has passed in the New Covenant and advent of the Messiah. The confession also says that this "moral law" was present before the Mosaic economy,⁹ and that the redemptive-historical shift included the abolition of the "ceremonial" and "civil" laws. The texts that speak to the passing of the law refer to the removal of the law as a condemning force (2nd LBC 19:6).

This argument for seeing only the "moral" law as succeeding into the New Covenant rises and falls upon one presupposition and that is the threefold division of the law. In contrast to these reformed scholars, I believe that no writer of Scripture sees or uses a threefold division of the law.¹⁰ The Mosaic Law was always talked about in sum total (cf. Jam 2:10). I believe this position is based more on presuppositional reading than true exegesis.¹¹

The eternal moral law of God is also a point of contention between traditional reformed scholarship and my position. I think that the eternal moral law of God is expressed in natural law (Rom 2:14-15), Mosaic Law, and the Law of Christ.¹² The eternal moral law of God is more fluid than simply the Decalogue. The Decalogue served a redemptive-historical purpose as a summary statement of the Old Covenant (and that is the reason for its position in the Ark of the Covenant, cf. Exo 25:16), but with the passing of a covenant so to does its stipulations. It should be noted that I am stating that the Decalogue is not supra-covenantal. It is true that nine of the ten commands in the Decalogue are repeated in the New Testament, but they serve a different function in the New Covenant.¹³

1. Douglas Moo, 'The Law of Christ' (pg. 321 [Back]
2. Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Pub, 1997), pg. 97. [Back]
3. Mark Karlberg in Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000) says the following (pg. 275): "Reformed theology has rightly stressed the essential continuity between the OT and NT. The law that was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham was limited in duration, serving a pedagogical role in the life of the old covenant people of God." I would suggest the reader to examine Mark Karlberg's works when investigating this issue. [Back]
4. Because of texts like this I cannot accept Moo's thesis the Mosaic Law included a hypothetical offer of salvation. For a persuasive critic of this belief see Walter Kaiser's article: "Leviticus 18:5 And Paul: Do This & You Shall Live (Eternally?)," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14:1 (Winter 1971) pg. 20-28. I also appreciate Mark Karlberg's analysis of Samuel Bolton who would say that: "The law was not given as a means of justification, otherwise the law would make void the promise of God and prove God unfaithful to his word" (Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, pg. 33). [Back]
5. Fred Zaspel, "The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law". New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick: New Covenant Media, 2002), pgs. 146-76. [Back]
6. When I say 'traditional' I am not excluding other interpretations within the reformed tradition. I myself am reformed soteriologically, but take issue with other stances within the tradition. What I mean by 'traditional' is most often associated with. This stance on law and gospel is not relegated to Dispensationalists (nor is my position exactly similar to a Dispensational reading); I find the precepts of covenant theology regarding the people of God intriguing and persuasive. For a good introduction to the precepts of covenant theology see Holwerda, David. Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). [Back]
7. Bahnsen, Greg. 'The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel.' Five Views. pg. 98-9. [Back]
8. The Westminster Standards which predates the London Baptist Confession uses similar language. [Back]
9. The confession states: 'The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments…' (19:2). [Back]
10. This is not to say that the writers of Scripture don't talk about the law in different senses (cf. Schreiner's The Law, pg. 40). [Back]
11. Douglas Moo states: "I agree that we cannot reject the distinction between moral law and other kinds of simply because the Bible nowhere states it. But I would insist again, as I do repeatedly in this volume, that one must find clear implications of such a division in the Bible if we are to accept it...it must be pointed out that we have plenty of evidence from that time [first-century] and before that Jews viewed the tora as an essential unity" ('The Law of Christ', pg. 223-4). And Schreiner says: '[D]oes [Paul] distinguish between the so-called ceremonial and moral law? The use of does not indicate that he does. Indeed, texts like Galatians 5:3 show that Paul considered the law to be a unity […] that came into existence at a certain point in history' (The Law, pg. 40). [Back]
12. A helpful diagram illustrating this point is provided by Moo in his rejoinder to William VanGerman's essay: 'The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ', Five Views (pg. 89). [Back]
13. Unfortunately due to space constraints I will not be able to elaborate further on this point, but I hope to in the near future. [Back]