In the past few blogs we’ve been looking at the idea of Covenant and Law. In this blog I’m going to present a simple comparison between the two. This seems appropriate since nobody has really spent much time doing so in all their religious discussions and defenses of their justification theology over the past century at least.
Let’s begin by considering a different definition of FAITH:
FAITH = ALLEGIANCE + OBEDIENCE
I get that from my political interpretation of the 1st and 2nd Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, as well as Deuteronomy 6’s ‘Shema’. I look at these Commandments in terms of covenant legal obligations instead of religious theology:
You shall have no other gods before Me. (Ex. 20 & De. 5 = ALLEGIANCE)
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Ex. 20 & De. 5 = OBEDIENCE)
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (the Shema, De. 6 = ALLEGIANCE + OBEDIENCE)
Jesus and his fellow citizens considered that to be “the Great Commandment” in the law. Jesus declared as much in his teachings in the Gospels. Here’s what he said:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22)
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions. (Mark 12)
25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” (Luke 10)
Notice also that according to Jesus, obedience to ‘the greatest commandment’ is also related to ‘inheriting eternal life’. In my mind, that is the same thing as having faith in God. Remember that Jesus is talking to citizens living under the authority of the Mosaic covenant. So:
FAITH IS NATIONAL ALLEGIANCE.
You’re basically putting God as the highest authority in your life when you have faith in Him. And when you are a citizen of Israel, it’s ‘Citizenship 101’ to give God your allegiance, and consequently obey His laws.
Remember that God’s laws are the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, your good citizenship is your expression of your faith in God. And, as we have seen in previous blogs, every citizen’s obedience adds-up to national blessings under God’s sovereignty. So, adhering to the ‘Shema’ is essentially the same thing as obeying the first 2 Commandments of the Decalogue. And when you do that, you end up obeying ALL of God’s laws. Otherwise, you would listen to and obey someone else, since you would have faith in another national authority, having been born in another nation. So:
FAITH IS OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW.
Now compare my definition of faith with the modern Evangelical Christian definition of faith. The difference is between allegiance to God and mental assent to religious creeds (theology). Christian religion’s faith is all in their mind, whereas my faith is all in my lifestyle. This has to do with adherence to authority vs. verbal and mental conditioning. Let me quote the Apostle James:
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)
My idea of THE GOSPEL used to be like that of the modern Christian, because I was trained by them. But now it’s different since I put the gospel into its proper context. What context? THE COVENANTS. I found it impossible to understand the meaning and practical implications of the gospel and faith without considering their native context, which is the Abrahamic covenant. That’s why I previously wrote my Galatians 3 blog and successive related blogs.
Considering the different perspectives on this subject, let us ask this question: What does ‘faith’ mean when considered in the context of the Abrahamic vs. the Mosaic Covenants?
Another question that should be asked is: Why did Paul use the term WORKS to refer to the Mosaic Covenant, instead of just calling it what it was: a covenant?
I think the answer is found in the literary device that Paul uses in other places. Essentially he refers to the bigger thing in terms of a part of it. And that part is the thing that he’s focusing on in his discussion. So he uses a word that identifies the part of the covenant that relates to the real-life issue he’s addressing in his letter. I believe that’s called METONYMY.
In that light, we can assume that Paul uses the term LAW or WORKS to refer to the Covenant itself, and not the STIPULATIONS and BLESSINGS/CURSES, although that’s what those terms specifically refer to. We can also assume that Paul does that because the stipulations and blessings/curses aspect of the covenant is what has been causing all the problems for Paul and his covenant communities when ‘the Jews’ meddle in their affairs. Likewise, he uses the term PROMISE or GRACE to refer to the Abrahamic Covenant itself, instead of to the actual promise and gift that those words specifically represent. Those key terms are what differentiates the one covenant from the other, based on the subject that Paul is addressing. They are the KEY elements that highlight the essence of the problem he’s addressing in his covenant communities. Let me say it like this, in principle:
God’s grace gives the promise which requires FAITH.
God’s nation received the law which requires WORKS.
By using those covenant terms to identify only the relevant parts of the covenants, Paul clearly identifies the aspect of the covenant that he wishes to address, which both covenants share in principle. And those specific words identify the corresponding part of each covenant which shows the differences between the two.
Consequently, when Paul uses the term “law” (Greek, ‘nomos’), he is NOT talking about the laws in particular. Instead, he’s talking about the Mosaic Covenant in terms of its stipulations. Same with the Abrahamic Covenant. He talks about that Covenant in terms of its promises given by God. In both cases, Paul is talking about the covenant and NOT the part which he identifies by its particular descriptive term in the text.
Regarding the Mosaic laws and associated works, one must acknowledge that the laws themselves are only one part of the Mosaic Covenant. The most important thing to recognize about the Mosaic Covenant is that it is historically known as a CONDITIONAL Covenant. The key aspect of a conditional covenant is that obedience to the laws is required in order to receive blessings from the sovereign of that covenant. Paul identifies that obedience with the word works and works of the law. Conversely, disobedience brings curses and troubles from the covenant’s sovereign. As we saw in a previous blog, this kind of works is a good and necessary thing. Jesus identified the result of that good thing as ‘eternal life’, albeit for each individual.
By way of contrast, God promises to Abraham are historically knowns as a ROYAL GRANT Covenant. This kind of covenant is a GIFT, meaning it’s God’s GRACE to Abraham. Just as the Mosaic covenant required obedience for blessings, this covenant blessing was received DUE TO Abraham’s life-long OBEDIENCE. So in both covenants, OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S LAW IS REQUIRED. With Abraham the obedience occurred BEFORE the GRACE was given, whereas with Israel the GRACE was given BEFORE the obedience. But either way, OBEDIENCE is required, whether under a CONDITIONAL covenant or a ROYAL GRANT covenant.
In light of those facts, one has to wonder WHY the Christian leaders have portrayed these works as unnecessary for Christians? And one has to wonder why they have portrayed these works as a bad thing for Israel? Surely Paul doesn’t consider obeying the Mosaic law as bad. Surely he himself did obey the Mosaic law when he lived in Israel, even after his ‘conversion’. So what justification do we have for portraying works as a bad thing, when they are in reality a good thing and required under both LAW and GRACE? I addressed this in a recent blog.
Considering that works is a good thing, then the next question that comes to mind is, WHY do Biblical scholars define law and works of the law in terms of the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant instead of the Covenant itself? Let us contrast what I said above with Paul’s statements directly dealing with very specific legal issues in his letters. For example, Paul addresses the matters of human sexuality and family law in 1 Corinthians 7. He uses very specific terms in that regard which refer back to the Mosaic law. In that context Paul is directly addressing the law AS-APPLIED to the circumstances of the people in that community. Another example is his declarations about unclean foods in 1 Corinthians 8-10. In that part of his letter, Paul deals specifically with idolatry. He’s talking about foods offered to idols. That is a well-known area of ‘Jewish law’ that has many regulations about buying, selling, eating, etc. Those are only a few examples of the many legal issues which Paul deals with in all of his letters.
Thus, we see two different CONTEXTS in which Paul uses LEGAL terminology. In the one context he writes about the COVENANTS and REDEMPTION (forgiveness of sins and receiving an inheritance), whereas in the other context he writes about the LAW and SANCTIFICATION (application of the law to daily living). With that contrast in mind, wouldn’t it seem more reasonable to assign the meaning of covenant stipulations to the latter context instead of the former? In other words, can you see WHY I claim Paul uses the word law as a reference to the covenant instead of with reference to the covenant stipulations when talking about LAW and PROMISE, WORKS and GRACE?
Far as I’m concerned (as seen above), I’m convinced that when Paul uses the word law when talking about God’s redemptive strategy, he’s referring to the covenants instead of the stipulations of those covenants. In that light, the entire theological doctrine of JUSTIFICATION (sola fide) needs to be revisited and reworked from an entirely different viewpoint. Imagine what Christianity would be like…and what life would be like, if everyone obeyed God’s laws!
So remember, instead of “law” meaning LAW, it means COVENANT unless the context dictates otherwise.
See you in the next blog!
(A big thanks goes out to my good friend Jim for editing this blog for grammar and content!)
Reality Bible 