Torah: Could it give life or not?
Here's Leviticus 18:5: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord."
Here's
Galatians 3:21: "For if a law had been given which was able to impart
life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law."
Which
is true? Levitcus clearly says that life with God could be gained by
obedience to the law and just as clearly Paul implies that no such law
had been given. The answer is that both are true. Leviticus is
speaking of an offer of life within the Mosaic covenant structure that
was offered only to Jews and Paul is speaking of eschatological covenant
life that is offered to humanity in and through Jesus Christ.
He says that a law had not been given (he uses edothe, an
aorist in the indicative and passive) that would bring "life". That is,
God hadn't given a law that was able to impart life. But, once more,
that is exactly what God said he did do. How are we to
"reconcile" Galatians 3.21 and Leviticus 18.5? As someone said a long
time ago, you don't "reconcile" friends--they aren't enemies. These two
friends are speaking of two different agendas and two different eras.
Leviticus 18.5 and texts like it speak of God bringing life to Israel within
the terms of the Mosaic covenant. That covenant brought righteousness
(life with God) to those to whom it was given. Read the texts for
yourself. The life God offered Israel was life he meant life can came to them as his
people in contrast to those who worshiped the gods of Egypt and Canaan
(Leviticus 18.1-4). This was life offered to sinners who lived in
covenant fidelity with Yahweh.
But God's eternal purpose was to
bring life to all nations and to bring it throough Jesus in the
Messianic age. This was life for the world, eschatological life in Jesus Christ.
That
was something to which the Jewish law pointed and led; something it
laid the groundwork for by bringing in the Messiah but the Mosaic law
itself could not accomplish that massive purpose. God never gave a law
to accomplish that purpose (Galatians 3.21).
We need to bear in mind that Paul was writing to/about people who believed in Jesus as the Messiah.
Their problem didn't lie in saying that life with God was possible without Christ; they didn't believe that!
But they wanted
to restrict the life found in the Messiah to Jews and Jewish proselytes
or at least Torah observant Gentiles; they wanted to restrict it
to those keeping the Jewish law. Jesus was a Jewish Messiah,
you understand, so one had to live as or become a Jew in order to gain
the life and righteousness that could be found only in him based on keeping the Jewish law—Leviticus 18:5.
Paul
insisted, of course, that righteousness and life could be found only in
Christ but he insisted that this life and righteousness was for all
nations rather than just Israel and he wouldn't tolerate this Jewish
sectarianism—see Galatians 2.11-16.
But it was life in Christ that was the center of the debate. The issue in Galatians was not: "Could
Israel have life with God before Christ's coming?" The issue was not:
"On what terms could Israel have life with God before Christ's coming?"
The issue was:
Now that Christ has come, who gains righteousness and life with God?
Now that Christ has come does anyone gain righteousness and life with
God by adhering to the Jewish law?
It was Paul's view that the
glorious Jewish law (as a covenant) belonged to another age and had a
limited range. He knew the commandment (torah) was intended to bring
life (Romans 7:10) and he knew Moses offered them life with God in terms
of keeping the law in trusting allegiance to God (Deuteronomy
30:15-20). None of that he would deny.
But that was not the issue in the Galatian situation.
There
was nothing evil about the Law so it wasn't opposed to God's promises
in Abraham (3:21 and Romans 7:7,12). But it wasn't adequate for the task
of universal blessing in Abraham through Christ.
Paul said, "For
if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then
righteousness would indeed have been based on law." (Galatians 3:21) The
life and righteousness of which he speaks is the life and righteousness
that is to be found for all nations only in Christ, the seed of
Abraham. It is that life and righteousness Paul has in mind. It is life in the Messianic age that Paul is talking about and not life prior to the coming of the Messiah. Note Hebrews 11:39-40.
So if we ask the general
question, "Could the Law of Moses bring righteousness and life with
God?" the answer has to be yes! To those who gave glad-hearted
allegiance to God. That's Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:15-16. "You
shalll keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live; I
am the Lord." And, "See I have set before you today life and
prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the
Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your
God, walkiing in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and
ordinances then you shall live..."
(This was always a matter of
God's grace. The Mosaic law did not require Jews to be sinless, for
pity's sake. They were already sinners when God gave it to them and they
would continue to be. What God insisted on is that Israel remain with
him in covenant fidelity and not go off to serve other gods (Deuteronomy
30:11-20).
If we ask the more specific question, "Could the torah bring in eschatological
righteousness and life?" the answer is a decisive no! The Mosaic torah
(covenant law) was an interim arrangement and had a limited range. It
was not intended to be and therefore could not result in the fulfilment
of the Abrahamic covenant. If a torah had been given by which
eschatological righteousness and life could have been brought in Paul
would have been content with that being the case (3:21). As it was, the
torah that was brought in, while it served many purposes, wasn't
intended to perform that function. Indeed, if it had been and
God had ordained that universal righteousness had to come by the Jewish
torah then Christ's death would have been for nothing (2:21).
In addition to all that, Israel refused to respond in covenant fidelity. They wouldn't give what they could give and were under obligation
to give. The Law then became their accuser and judge and bound the
nation to the curse that was attached to covenant infidelity. This meant
Israel needed to be redeemed from the violated covenant which now (due
to Sin's sinister working had become their enemy—Romans 7:11-14.
Again, we need to note that Paul is speaking to believers in the Christ. His
opponents insisted that in the eschatological era life in and through
Christ came by the Jewish Torah and therefore all who wanted life in
Christ would have to submit to the Torah. Paul insisted that if
universal righteousness could have come by the Torah then Christ died
for nothing (Galatians 2:21). Had he been addressing non-believing Jews
his argument would have been framed altogether different. But since he
makes Christ's death the test of gospel truth it's clear that he's
addressing believers in Jesus—besides, he opposes Peter and even his
colleague in Gentile evangelistic work. Believers, Paul thought, had to
make up their minds: acknowledge the impotency of the Torah to gain life
in the eschatological age, the world to come, or conclude Christ died
for nothing. They had to acknowledge that the Jewish covenant offered
righteousness and life only to Israel and therefore couldn't fulfil the universal purposes of God in Abraham and his offspring Jesus Christ.
While it's true that God knew Israel as a nation
would not keep the covenant (Deuteronomy 5:27-29 and elsewhere) it is
nevertheless true that prior to the coming of Jesus Christ a trusting
commitment to God in terms of the Torah brought life and righteousness.
Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 6:25 and elsewhere says so.
So could
the Jewish law (Torah) bring life? Yes, to the obedient Jew to whom it
was given and for as long as God caused that covenant to stand.
Could
the life and righteousness of the "world to come" that embraced all
nations in Abraham's promises come by the Jewish law? Absolutely not.
Onc
more, the covenant Law the Jews wanted to bind on Gentiles was the very
covenant Law the nation (as a whole) despised and dishonored throughout
its history. The crucifixion of Jesus was the final proof of that. To
bring Gentiles under the OT Covenant was to bring them under a curse—the
one the Jewish nation itself was under.
You might think the related pieces in this section on this topic are of some use.