Gal. 3: 12 Yet
the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Context tells me what Paul meant by “the law was not of faith”. Paul is not contrasting two faiths ~ one you call saving faith and one you say is not saving faith. Paul is contrasting the law (as being of works) and faith. That the law is of works and is not of faith. The following passages is where that is coming from.
Gal. 3:
2This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Yes, I never meant to say that Paul was contrasting 2 types of faith. I was saying that his particular use of the word "faith" is determined by context. And in this particular context, his reference to "faith" implies "saving faith." By contrast, Paul uses "faith" in other contexts in which the application is different, and can speak of faith through which men obeyed the Law.
To say that Israel observed the Law without faith is patently absurd, and I'm surprised you would argue this! To say that David, for example, obeyed the Law, and spoke glowingly of it in Psalm 119, and yet did not regard the Law with faith sounds crazy!
Clearly, God expected men of faith to obey the Law *in faith* when they observed the Law of Moses. Clearly, Paul was saying something else, and I'm trying to explain that.
Paul is saying that the Law gave a person what he deserved--if obedience, blessing, if disobedience, cursing. And if after an atoning ritual a person committed a single sin, eternal life was denied. This kind of faith pleased God, because it held people in relationship with God, but it was not the kind of faith that appropriated Saving Grace. And Paul's use of "faith" here implies NT Grace. It is faith that bypasses the guilt of sin to appropriate eternal life.
Gal. 3:
5Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you,
does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 just as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
The Law of Moses made no provision for obtaining eternal life. Much the opposite, it showed a way to please God even while he remained condemned by his sin nature. Not even temporary atonement rituals could remove the guilt of sin permanently.
In verse 6, he points to the faith of Abraham, which establishes what faith he is talking about in v.2&5. Now, did Paul by that meant to distinguish this faith in v.2, 5 &6 to be different from that in v.12? I don’t think so. To the contrary it goes to show that his use of faith in v.12 is as he use it in v.2 & 5-6.
Yes, the implication is clear that one kind of faith falls short, namely the faith of Abraham and the faith of those under the OT Law, whereas NT faith actually appropriates the thing that Abraham hoped for. OT faith is not useless because it is directed towards NT Grace. But it is only NT faith that actually achieves Salvation. OT faith was virtuous only because it waited for NT Salvation, instead of relying on OT systems of justification.
S, not even Abraham appropriated Salvation by his OT faith, even though his faith predated the Law. The Law simply confirmed what already existed in Abraham's time, that the sin nature of Man prevented all men from gaining new access to the Tree of Life. Until Christ actually came and died, OT faith did *not* appropriate NT Salvation!
Paul's point was only that Abraham recognized his own faith would not be enough to achieve Salvation. It would only achieve Salvation by relying on something beyond his own flawed record of obedience, hoping for a permanent grant of clemency.
Similarly, the faith of those under the Law properly recognized that the purpose of the Law was to show their inadequacy, and their need for God's mercy to overcome their deficiencies. True OT faith was successful because it depended on a record that transcended their own record under the Law.
That is what made Abraham's faith special, and it is also what made the faith of those keeping the Law special. They were dependent on God's mercy and not on their record of perfection under the Law. They used animal sacrifices to express sincere dependence on God's grace for forgiveness. They depended on atonement rituals to express their short-comings and their need for God's mercy.
Abraham's faith appropriated God's mercy, and was the right kind of faith. But it did not achieve Salvation until Christ came to be the object of his faith. Paul may not have distinguished one faith and another, but the implication is clear. OT faith had not yet achieved Salvation. NT faith does achieve Salvation. But the faith in both testaments will likewise achieve Salvation in the end.
Paul in v.6-10 points to the obvious answers to his questions in v.2&5, that is, faith, concluding that those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham~ they are justified.
They are only justified *after* Christ came and died. Abraham was only temporarily justified during the OT era. His faith, however, was the right kind of faith at that time, and was directed at final justification from God, which we now know has come through Christ.
Again, Paul is not saying that Abraham by faith obtained eternal justification. Paul wasn't trying to distinguish between temporary justification and eternal justification. We have to read these words in their proper context to understand what Paul was saying.
Now in verse 10-11, in contrast to those of faith, Paul tells us of those of the works of the law, that none will be justified for the reason that “the just shall live by faith.” It is at this point that Paul said of the law, that it is not of faith. That since the law is not of faith, is why no one will be justified by the works of the law. Had the law been of faith, then there will be justification.
Paul is saying, in his somewhat-obtuse way, that these "works of Law" are works done by those who don't have faith, who are trying to find intrinsic value in observing the Law without faith. In such a case, the Law only serves to condemn them because it was the purpose of the Law to show that all are disqualified form eternal life who have a sin nature.
By contrast, Paul is suggesting that those under the Law who actually had faith in what the Law represented would appropriate the mercy that the Law suggested was necessary. Man could never be redeemed by his own record of obedience alone. He required one who perfectly obeyed the Law, and did work on our behalf that could not be disqualified. Not only so, but our Redeemer had to be Divine so that his forgiveness represented God's forgiveness for all sin.
Under the Law men either operated under true faith or not. When Paul said the Law is not of faith he's describing how Israel depended on the Law apart from faith. That is what he meant by saying "the Law is not of faith." In other words, those who depend on obedience to the Law are not of faith, because they are failing to see that depending on the Law only condemns them for having a sin nature.
So, that is why I don’t see anything to resolve about the use of faith there by Paul. The context will tell us what it is. It is faith that comes from God, such as is that in the case of Abraham.
Tong
R1645
You may have to read my response a few times to get the argument. But at its face, it's transparently wrong to say that the Law was not intended by God to be observed by faith by men of faith. Obviously, everything God gave Israel through His word was intended to be responded to in *faith!*