And Nobody is saying otherwise.
<<<It was just not faith in *Christ's work.*>>>
Obviously. For when the law was given, Christ’s work on earth was not yet. However, in that part of Gal.3 until verse 12, Paul was not talking about the work of Christ, but about the Law. He said that it was not of faith. In the positive, he is saying of the law, that it is of works.
Here is where we're in disagreement. I believe Paul was indeed talking about Christ. It is inferred. Hence, I call his words a shortcut, so that he does not have to mention Christ in every sentence.
Paul was saying that the Law did not have faith because Christ had not yet come to become the object of faith for eternal life. Obviously, there was faith under the Law. So Paul was not speaking of generic "faith," but rather, of faith *in Christ.*
After saying what the Law could not do, even though we know it operated through men of faith, Paul says:
Gal 3.13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
And so we know Paul was not speaking of faith under the Law, but rather, of faith in Christ!
Now, see what Paul was saying in verses 9 and 10. In v.9 he said those who are of faith (e.g. Abraham) are blessed.
They were blessed not because they had eternal life already, but only because
*faith was necessary to receive atonement for their sins.* Apart from this, no blessing was possible.
But not even Abraham, with his faith, could obtain eternal life. He was an example of one who had faith
to demonstrate the importance of looking to a redeemer from sin so that the necessity of forgiveness for sins could be demonstrated. If Abraham looked to God to forgive his sins, then ultimately, after Christ came, Abraham's faith could be placed in the work of Christ so that he would be forgiven forever.
While in v.10 he said those who are of the works of the Law, are under the curse. With that, it is my understanding that even those who among Israel in the OT times, who are of faith, as was Abraham, are blessed as was Abraham. That they are blessed is because of faith and does not have anything to do with the Law, though they are under the Law and are to do the works of the Law.
But that is illogical because it was in *obeying the Law* that Israel was blessed.
It was both their faith for forgiveness and their obedience under the Law that brought them blessing. It just didn't bring them eternal life, because
the very Law that blessed them through their obedience also cursed them by pointing out that they were transgressors of the Law and ineligible for eternal life.
The point is, people in the OT could have faith, be blessed, and obey the Law, and they were found to be ineligible for eternal life. The Law was based on the inadequately redeemed works of men, whose redemption under the Law was transient and incapable of final redemption.
<<<They could offer animal sacrifices, and thus have their sentence reduced or be acquitted.>>>
Could you point me to the scriptures where we can find that?
It is so ubiquitous is shouldn't require proof! The purpose of animal sacrifices was given. They could avoid death for the meantime, but death would eventually come regardless. Even if they were guilty of some things, they could be let go as if innocent, only by repenting and performing the necessary rituals of atonement.
That is because the law was given to Israel not for the intention that through it, they will obtain eternal life. With regards salvation, it was given to keep them under guard and bring them to Christ, and have faith, by which they might be justified, in like sense that Abraham was justified by faith. Further regarding the law, no matter how you look at the law, no law was given that would give eternal life. All there is but works that they must and must not do to keep God from sending His wrath upon them.
We're generally on the same page here, though perhaps I might word it a little differently. The Law was a temporary system of righteousness by which Israel could obey God and obtain a covenant relationship with Him, as well as receive blessings from Him.
It was never intended to provide eternal life, because it spoke the truth. It showed man that he was a sinner and had to deal with his sins all the time in order to enjoy fellowship with God.
By showing that man was a sinner the Law basically rendered man ineligible for eternal life, just as it was after the Fall. The Law simply restated what God had already judged in the Fall.
And so, the Law was never intended to be the conduit of eternal life. It was intended to show the necessity of faith for forgiveness, without which Man cannot enjoy fellowship with God. By showing faith for forgiveness Israel could indeed enjoy a covenant relationship with God.
They just couldn't get eternal life until Christ came to bring final forgiveness.
And so, faith was the conduit of forgiveness, without which Man cannot enjoy a relationship with God. And thus, faith became the basis of our receiving eternal life, because now faith can be placed in Christ, the final atonement for our sins.
That's the "faith" that had not been available as long as the Law still stood. As long as the Law stood, Man was found to be a sinner and ineligible for eternal life. He could only have faith for temporary forgiveness, because he had a sin nature, and would always sin again, rendering himself ineligible for eternal life.
I could see our differences in our view. You see two faiths, NT faith and faith before NT, the former as achieving eternal life and the latter as something short of that. I on the other hand see one faith, through which man is saved by God, then and now.
Tong
R1672
Yes, very astute of you. You characterize that right. Now please explain to me why you don't agree with me, that faith in the OT did not yet achieve eternal life?
In my book, faith "came" only when Christ came and became the historic source of eternal life. Until he came, the Law disqualified men from eternal life, including Abraham and Israel under the Law. Their faith was admirable, looking to God for forgiveness. But it could not yet achieve eternal life.
Their faith did, however, achieve that when Christ came. Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways? Yes, Abraham's faith obtained eternal life. But I would say that his faith did not achieve that until
after Christ actually provided his atonement for sin.
You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you? If not, then in effect you're agreeing with me, that Abraham's faith fell short of salvation until Christ actually came. His faith looked to God for Grace, but that Grace did not actually become eternal life until after Christ rose from the dead.
Again, when Paul implied that "faith had not yet come," he was referring to *faith in Christ.* Faith obviously preexisted Christ in the Law and in Abraham. So Paul was speaking in abbreviated form of *faith in Christ.*