OT Salvation

1. Galatians depicts the Law as helpful to expose sin and a need for a Savior (Gal 3:19-25). Isn't this the obvious import of this passage?

2. We have the privilege of looking back after the fact of the Cross and the NT writers reflections, if you will, of the Patriarchs and the Covenant people.

3. Whether we can run the golden thread as not to undermine the Atonement of Christ, is a tall order.

1. To say that Galatians depicts the law as "helpful" is a bit generous. The focus in chapter 3 and in the letter as a whole is the superoirity of faith over against the law as it was practiced by Jews. Look at the harsh things Paul says in chapter 1! Now obviously the law as given at Sinai had a function for the stiff-necked Israelites. But that function is not to offer justification. My point was that clearly there is no salvation to be had here through the law. I find the idea (not that you espouse it) that salvation could be earned in any "dispensation" to be ridiculous.

2. We do have that privilege. And our hindsight is clearer than their foresight in some cases.

3. Regarding the golden thread... Well I never claimed to be a systematician - and I don't intend to start now. But I do think that the picture of the "Christ event" we get from the NT as a whole is that it was the defining event in salvation history. To say that salvation could be obtained any other way is to say that it was not such an event. And besides - how else do you deal with Jn 8:56-57?

 

Why not consider the oldest book in the Bible, Job, where we read:

(Job 33:23,24) "If there be a messenger (Christ) with him, an interpreter (Holy Spirit), one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to hell: I have found a ransom (atonement)." It is all of Christ. Law only shows me where I go wrong. It does not redeem me from the penalty of violating that law.

So grace through faith applies through all of time, in my opinion, and understanding of the scriptures.

Cheers,

Jim

 

1. I never intimated that anyone was justified by the Law/Law-keeping. Paul says that the Law was a paidagogos, "custodian,guide," and you see nothing positive about that?

2. I like the reference and obvious implications of John 8:56-57. I don't think you will find that I disagree with you on that. But what is meant by "Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" is a recipe for hairsplitting.

3. Warren Weirsbe ventures that Abraham saw the Lord's day by faith the same way he saw the future city (Heb. 11:10, 13-16).

 

Wow, I'll have to add this to my list of things I learned on BB. I never caught that in Job.

 

TC,

Perhaps some of what I'm doing on this thread is hair-splitting!

As far as the law being a positive thing - yes I do think Paul has good things to say about the law - but more in Romans than in Galatians. Obviously God's law is not a bad thing. But I think that the law given at Sinai is generally to be viewed in a negative light as far as Paul is concerned. Negative in that it cannot offer justification and will offer condemnation. Again I follow Das and Hafemann here in terms of the "letter/spirit duality" of the law. It was Israel's unfaithfulness to God which caused the law to be given as it was. Israel had in a sense already (in the words of Francis Watson) forfeited the promised land before it entered in.

As far as the faith of Abraham... I agree - it is hair splitting. But I do find a need to tie his salvation to Christ. I think to do otherwise diminishes what Christ's death and resurrection was - a climactic and unparalleled event in history.

 

TC...after further illumination, I agree and my post was short-sighted. It appears to be referring to, not only the immediate age of Israel and the dissemination of the gospel via Israel, but much more thoroughly and in the context of which Paul is using it to the gospel reality that from Abraham's line eventually would come the Christ, from which all nations would be blessed and are in fact today as men have come to Christ since. Thank you for the challenge.

 

Yes, due to the work of Christ but not according to the knowledge of Christ. Remember, the OT saints went to sheol below until Christ arose. Then they went to heaven.

So we see here 2 things: 1) the had faith in God and coming kingdom ever since Adam to whom God said, "His seed shall bruise his heel and her Seed shall bruise his head," meaning put Satan to death. This is the "kingdom" aspect of the very first gospel.

John 8:56-57 - Chas, Jesus was offering the kingdom to them in this speech. The kingdom is what Abraham looked forward to.

Eph 1:10-11 -- fulness of times, to me, means end of time, beginning of eternity. That is, post MK. That is, indeed, when both OT and NT will live as one in the New Earth in glory.

Here's where the "tie" is --- Abraham's soul and spirit arose with Christ at the resurrection. Later, post-trib, Abraham will be resurrected to the throne of Messiah on earth, will bow the knee and confess Him as Savior. This fulfills not only the kingdom promise but the Messiah promise that Abraham believed on and was counted for righteousness.

skypair

 

I think Charles and I would agree with this observation.

 

Charles,

1. You cannot discount the fact that Paul views the Law as a paidagogos, a guide until Christ. Now, that is something positive.

2. Neither is Paul saying that because the Law served as a paidagogos meant that it had justification value--quite the contrary (Gal. 2:16).

3. I don't think we have to go to Romans to prove that the Law had something positive about it. That fact that it served as a paidagogos is positive, indeed.

 

TC,

I really don't see paidagogos as positive. I'd translate it "stern schoolmaster" rather than a helpful guide.

And I think it's tough to not see the Jewish OT conception of the law as flawed from the beginning. I don't think that Paul considered the law all bad. But I think he recognized that from it's Sinaitic inception is was bound to lead to condemnation. And yet he admits that he did previously work hard by the law's standards to earn righteousness. It is against this legalism which he inveighs - the law is in fact not a tool for justification but rather only a stern babysitter. And if this law could not justify then something else is needed - namely Christ. So if the OT saints were justified they certainly were not justified through the law. And if they could have been justified without Jesus' blood then why could God have not just renewed His covenant with Abraham rather than sending Jesus to suffer?

 

1. Paul says that the Law was added because of transgressions. In another place, he says it is holy and good.

2. The Law, which was never meant to justify anyone but to reveal the need of the Savior, served the purpose for which God designed it. It that sense it was positive. How can that fact escape us?

 

WOW!!

I agree...grace is found throughout the Bible, but I have never seen that one.
The old reformers use to claim Christ is on ever page if you take the time to look for Him.

Great stuff Jim. That passage is a real gem

 

TC,

1. Paul says that the Law was added because of transgressions. In another place, he says it is holy and good.

2. The Law, which was never meant to justify anyone but to reveal the need of the Savior, served the purpose for which God designed it. It that sense it was positive. How can that fact escape us?

1. I agree. But one cannot deny the negative references to Sinai - as in using "katatome" instead of "peritome". Paul was not bashing the law per se - rather those who sought to misuse it. As such he focused on its limitations.

2. I think this was exactly Paul's point in Galatians. And Paul certainly does make positive references in places ("we establish the law...").

The Jews saw the law as part of their covenant - with righteous coming from works. This arguably was not the thrust of the Abrahamic covenant - but that's what the Jews believed (contra Sander et al). This is evidenced in the DSS like 4QMMT where Jews are said to earn righteousness by performing "miqsat ma'aseh hatorah". As I said above Paul of course appreciated that it was "God's law" - so it could not be all bad. But he had serious problems with its present applications. This is all obvious I'm sure for any student of the word. But there are, I think, difficult implications here. How can the Levitical law be a "good thing" when the NT seems to completely reject the idea of needing to obey the law. Something about that set up must be wrong - for God obviously would not have set it up errantly.

My opinion is that the Jews folly at Sinai, including their request to deal with Moses and not God directly, resulted in the giving of the law being a doomed proposition. In this sense all it could do was point to Christ since it was obvious that no one could keep it. And even if one could keep it could one really be deemed righteous?

Thus the original question comes back into view...

How could OT saints be saved? Not by the law obviously. I still find it necessary to link their salvation to Christ's work - even if they did not know Him by name. I think Calvin would agree here!

And again - the biggest implied question:

If they were saved exterior to Christ then how was/is He the savior of all mankind? This would relegate Him to a limited part in a very "dispensational" scheme and would in my opinion open the door for universlaist claims.

 

1. I wholeheartedly agree with you here. There's some connection to the atonement of Christ (Rom 3:23-26).

2. The sins of the OT saints were somehow connected to the atonement of Christ. We agree here and Paul too (Rom 3:23-26).