So what's so new about the new Covenant, and is it better, really?

[Tong2020]

Where there is no law, there is no sin. Yes, and no. One cannot be a law-breaker if no law has been enacted, and yet, God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, and those at the time of the deluge. So, are there two laws, the one written in our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and the Levitical Law?
Arguably, yes. To what extent are we accountable to either, and what are the consequences of defying one or the other, depends on the dispensation.

Not really two laws in different dispensations.
At first we have the law written in the hearts of man. Some time later the law was just made as a code in written scriptures, and that is for Israel and those who are within their gates. For the rest of mankind, it remained as it were, in their hearts.

Tong
R1860

 

[Renniks]

Yes, Abraham was justified by his faith, and so was Isaac and Jacob as the promises were reiterated to them also, and they believed them. Joseph also prophesied of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt and their departure. These are evidence of their faith.

But the Law was implemented for a reason, and when it was enacted by Moses, the Israelites had a new mandate as how to please God and gain His approbation. For those that abide by it, will live by it. They all died, so what was the meaning of the promise? Isaiah did not pray in the name of Jesus Christ, nor the Messiah. Neither did Jeremiah, Elijah, King Joash, or Ezra, etc...

Genesis 3:15 was made clear in the NT, it would have eluded those prior to that time as a Messianic prophecy, as much as some of Daniel's prophecies were meaningless to him. I understand the NT allusions to OT types, but these are revealed after the fact in order to explain and justify the occurrences in the NT, not that they were understood as such when they were prophesied (most OT prophecy related to the current period, but had a related principle in the NT).

Galations 3
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

First point: the law was a tutor to point us to Christ.

Owe no one anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:12, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." James said it a bit differently (2:8), "If you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.

Second point: Love fulfills the law.

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, the righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law (or: who pursued the law of righteousness) did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it (i.e., the law) through faith, but as if it were based on works.

Third point: The law never commanded anyone to try to merit his salvation. The law is based on faith in God's promises, not on legalistic strivings. The mistake of Israel was not in pursuing the law, but in pursuing it by works instead of by faith.

This is a big topic. I'm just hitting a few of the high points.

 

[Cooper]

As I see it, the law prior to the Law of Moses is that which was in the hearts of man.

In time, God made a covenant with Israel, the law was made into a written code to be observed and kept by Israel as their covenant obligation and for which they would live by and be governed as a people of God.

<<<what was it added to,?>>>

Added to the covenant of God with Abraham.

Tong
R1859

Didn't my response satisfy you?

So what's so new about the new Covenant, and is it better, really?
.

 

[justbyfaith]

the Savior who was promised to them, who shall come.

Who has come; and shall come again.

Ezekiel 33:15 if the wicked gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

I understand this was intended for the people of Israel, them who are under the law of Moses.

So, you're saying that for Israel, they can receive life by obeying the righteousness of the law; but that this does not apply to Gentiles.

So, if you are a Jew, you can be justified by the law?

I would only point out that even Gentiles fulfill the righteousness of the law when they walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4). Even Gentiles are a part of the New Covenant (Ephesians 3:6); which covenant involves the Lord writing on the heart and mind of the recipient, His laws (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:4, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; Romans 5:5).

Such Gentiles are not justified by the law but through faith in Christ; and because they have faith in Christ they have received the Holy Spirit, by whom their behaviour ends up not being in violation of any law (Romans 8:4, Galatians 5:22-23).

So then, they are justified because they are doers of the law (Romans 2:13); while they are in all reality not justified by the law but by faith in Christ.

 

[DNB]

Please read again the following....

Please note. We have sin. Well before Sinai, as you say, Sodom, the flood, all testified of sin that was most definitely imputed against them, therefore there must have been a law and their transgressions defied that law. They were punished accordingly. But Paul states there was another law added because of those transgressions. This cannot be the same law otherwise the entire sense of scripture is twisted beyond logical belief. One law that testified to sin, one law added because of sin. Two different laws. Two different purposes. Yet united in one sense as scripture says, to operate as a united schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
People are so keen to pontificate on the law, declaring this and that regarding is relevance... The obligations(or not) to obey... It's demise on the cross...
Yet I have seen very few gave up to and give a reasonable cogent answer to the question... What are these two laws and what was the second one added to?
Your answer in a good attempt... But what law... Or whose laws... Were written on the heart? Where are they now? Are they still relevant?

I see, ...yes, i was rather ambiguous in my response because I wasn't quite sure of the specifics of your question - because I'm hesitant to declare that there were actually two Laws.
Not to be flippant or dismissive, but you know very well that there were not two Laws enacted or covenanted by God, neither in a prominent nor prevalent manner. In other words, I believe that you are being somewhat dogmatic over a rather obscure and isolated passage, ...especially by John, the rather profound and poetic author. I'm not being abrupt or demeaning, but you do agree that Biblically on a comprehensive level, there are no grounds to conclude that there were two Laws, outside of the ones that I stated, the natural Law, and the Mosaic Law.

If you are trying to establish a doctrine based this one verse, then your hermeneutics would be put into question.
Sorry if I've missed the entirety of your point, or other evidence that you may have in mind?

 

[DNB]

And Joshua and Samuel necessarily did not of the Messiah. For even Moses knew about the Messiah and told Israel in his generation about Him.

Please explain both sentences - the former is incoherent, and the latter requires qualification.
Thanks!

 

[DNB]

Not really two laws in different dispensations.
At first we have the law written in the hearts of man. Some time later the law was just made as a code in written scriptures, and that is for Israel and those who are within their gates. For the rest of mankind, it remained as it were, in their hearts.

Tong
R1860

Yes, I believe that that is a viable explanation. Thanks for the elaboration.
...but, don't forget, there is also the principle of '...no law, no transgression...'

Romans 5:12-14
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

 

[DNB]

Galations 3
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

First point: the law was a tutor to point us to Christ.

Owe no one anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:12, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." James said it a bit differently (2:8), "If you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.

Second point: Love fulfills the law.

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, the righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law (or: who pursued the law of righteousness) did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it (i.e., the law) through faith, but as if it were based on works.

Third point: The law never commanded anyone to try to merit his salvation. The law is based on faith in God's promises, not on legalistic strivings. The mistake of Israel was not in pursuing the law, but in pursuing it by works instead of by faith.

This is a big topic. I'm just hitting a few of the high points.

It is a very big topic, and rather difficult, in my mind.
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
This is stating that the Law had its efficacy until the time of Christ. I believe that you are conflating two different principles. For one, It appears that you are throwing around the concept of fulfilling the Law by Faith, which I have no idea what that means? Yes, Paul made that statement, but the concept still eludes me, outside of this.... I believe that when Paul makes the comparison between the Gentiles pursuit of righteousness, versus the Israelites, he is talking about after the fact, not when a Law was implemented for either group. Paul is referring to the Gentiles accepting the Gospel, and thus, attaining justification by faith, whereas the Israelites after hearing of the new Covenant persisted in striving to attain salvation by works, ...which was the intent prior to Christ.

Yes, the Law alludes to Christ once the concept is revealed, but prior, it was a work based Salvation, and men were killed or exalted due to their degree of adherence to it.

 

[Tong2020]

Please explain both sentences - the former is incoherent, and the latter requires qualification.
Thanks!

Oh sorry about that.

What I was trying to say was that, since you seemed to suggest that Joshua and Samuel knew nothing of the Messiah, that was not necessarily the case. For Moses knew of the promised Messiah that God will raise Israel and preached the same to them. He told them about him, a prophet like him whom God will raise from among their brethren whom they shall hear in all things, whatever He says (Deut.18:15-19).

Tong
R1861

 

[DNB]

Oh sorry about that.

What I was trying to say was that, since you seemed to suggest that Joshua and Samuel knew nothing of the Messiah, that was not necessarily the case. For Moses knew of the promised Messiah that God will raise Israel and preached the same to them. He told them about him, a prophet like him whom God will raise from among their brethren whom they shall hear in all things, whatever He says (Deut.18:15-19).

Tong
R1861

Gotcha, thanks!
All the prophesies from the OT, that were quoted in the NT, have double meanings. They had a distinct significance in their current time, and typically, the NT authors take liberties with their relevance in the NT. Even Isaiah 7:14 says 'maiden', not 'virgin', and had a direct meaning pertaining to Isaiah's time.

The full context of Moses' prophecy, was immediate (1 - 2 generations), when read in its entirety, it is not unequivocally a messianic prophecy.

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Not really two laws in different dispensations.
At first we have the law written in the hearts of man. Some time later the law was just made as a code in written scriptures, and that is for Israel and those who are within their gates. For the rest of mankind, it remained as it were, in their hearts.

Yes, I believe that that is a viable explanation. Thanks for the elaboration.
...but, don't forget, there is also the principle of '...no law, no transgression...'

Romans 5:12-14
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Yes, there was law between the time of Adam until Moses. Only that, it was in written in the hearts of men, and was not like so when God gave it as a code written in scriptures to Israel with the judgments and curses that go with it.

So, Paul was explaining in that passage that even before the Law of Moses, there was sin in the world. Only that, since there was not yet the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed as it was under the Law. That is why, Paul said in Gal. 3:19, that the law was added because of transgressions, before which, transgressions could not be imputed to man, as though it were no sin or as though they are not guilty of sin, or as though having no knowledge of sin, or as though there was no law and they could just do anything they like with impunity. This is why Paul said in Romans 3:20, that the law is the knowledge of sin and in Romans 7:13, that through the law, sin might appear and become exceedingly sinful. So here, we can appreciate why God gave the Law to Israel.

Tong
R1862

 

[DNB]

Yes, there was law between the time of Adam until Moses. Only that, it was in written in the hearts of men, and was not like so when God gave it as a code written in scriptures to Israel with the judgments and curses that go with it.

So, Paul was explaining in that passage that even before the Law of Moses, there was sin in the world. Only that, since there was not yet the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed as it was under the Law. That is why, Paul said in Gal. 3:19, that the law was added because of transgressions, before which, transgressions could not be imputed to man, as though it were no sin or as though they are not guilty of sin, or as though having no knowledge of sin, or as though there was no law and they could just do anything they like with impunity. This is why Paul said in Romans 3:20, that the law is the knowledge of sin and in Romans 7:13, that through the law, sin might appear and become exceedingly sinful. So here, we can appreciate why God gave the Law to Israel.

Tong
R1862

But it was a Covenantal Law, there were repercussions for both obeying it, and not obeying it.
God demanded adherence to it, and if so, for what purpose? Especially all the dietary, festival and sacrificial laws, which are entirely superfluous to us today. Clearly God offered redemption to those who were able to abide by the Law, with the allowance of failure by the sin offering. A sin offering, by definition, purges the culprit of guilt, ...until his next crime. This was the onerous and condemning, and thus temporal, aspect of the Law, and why it needed to be replaced.

Just because God instituted a new Law, of Faith, it does not mean that the former Law had no efficacy or purpose, other than ritual or formality. It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

"]Believing in Him is enough.

No it aint.....you got to repent from all of your sins before you die......stop omitting it when it’s useful..... you’ve said as much 1000 times ....Own it.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

The context of that verse will bear out that Paul actually uses that verse, in Galatians 3:10-13, to promote the idea that we cannot be justified by law-keeping.

We are Justified by Repenting from all of our sins before we die....your “ Gospel” in a nutshell ...

 

[Tong2020]

It is a very big topic, and rather difficult, in my mind.
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
This is stating that the Law had its efficacy until the time of Christ. I believe that you are conflating two different principles. For one, It appears that you are throwing around the concept of fulfilling the Law by Faith, which I have no idea what that means? Yes, Paul made that statement, but the concept still eludes me, outside of this.... I believe that when Paul makes the comparison between the Gentiles pursuit of righteousness, versus the Israelites, he is talking about after the fact, not when a Law was implemented for either group. Paul is referring to the Gentiles accepting the Gospel, and thus, attaining justification by faith, whereas the Israelites after hearing of the new Covenant persisted in striving to attain salvation by works, ...which was the intent prior to Christ.

Yes, the Law alludes to Christ once the concept is revealed, but prior, it was a work based Salvation, and men were killed or exalted due to their degree of adherence to it.

<<<Yes, the Law alludes to Christ once the concept is revealed, but prior, it was a work based Salvation, and men were killed or exalted due to their degree of adherence to it.>>>

In the context of salvation from sin and hell, we have to remember what is the purpose of the law. It was to keep Israel on guard and bring them to Christ. And who is Christ? Yes, He is the Savior. So, clearly, the law was not given as some work based salvation as it brings them to the Savior. Thus, the law was not a system or a way for Israel to be justified and be saved, but for the purposes already stated. Paul made this clear saying in Romans 3:28, that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law and said in Gal. 2:16, that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. The law was not simply given as a means of obtaining life. Paul pointed out in Gal. 3:21, “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.”

Tong
R1863

 

[Tong2020]

Gotcha, thanks!
All the prophesies from the OT, that were quoted in the NT, have double meanings. They had a distinct significance in their current time, and typically, the NT authors take liberties with their relevance in the NT. Even Isaiah 7:14 says 'maiden', not 'virgin', and had a direct meaning pertaining to Isaiah's time.

The full context of Moses' prophecy, was immediate (1 - 2 generations), when read in its entirety, it is not unequivocally a messianic prophecy.

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

Perhaps. But none of the prophets of old were like Moses, until Jesus Christ.

Tong
R1864

 

[DNB]

<<<Yes, the Law alludes to Christ once the concept is revealed, but prior, it was a work based Salvation, and men were killed or exalted due to their degree of adherence to it.>>>

In the context of salvation from sin and hell, we have to remember what is the purpose of the law. It was to keep Israel on guard and bring them to Christ. And who is Christ? Yes, He is the Savior. So, clearly, the law was not given as some work based salvation as it brings them to the Savior. Thus, the law was not a system or a way for Israel to be justified and be saved, but for the purposes already stated. Paul made this clear saying in Romans 3:28, that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law and said in Gal. 2:16, that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. The law was not simply given as a means of obtaining life. Paul pointed out in Gal. 3:21, “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.”

Tong
R1863

Sorry Tong, you are speaking of very profound things, but you are not explaining them. The Law leads to Christ, how? How does the Law keep Israel on guard, without saving them?
The Law lead the Israelites to Christ, as it did the Gentiles, only once the Gospel was revealed, no one saw that coming. The Messiah as a political monarch, yes, but not a suffering Messiah to be crucified before he reached 35 years of age.
David said that the Law brought life. Paul said that it brought death - but that is the profundity of the paradox. If recognized as such, as something that entices the flesh (forbidden fruit), then one has an advantage to overcome it. Meaning, it wasn't obligatory death.

 

[justbyfaith]

Even Isaiah 7:14 says 'maiden', not 'virgin', and had a direct meaning pertaining to Isaiah's time.

However, it also had application specifically to the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:20-23).

Believing in Him is enough.

No it aint.....you got to repent from all of your sins before you die......stop omitting it when it’s useful..... you’ve said as much 1000 times ....Own it.

Alright, I own it. So, do you think that means I have to accept the idea that a man has eternal life through the taking of communion?

We are Justified by Repenting from all of our sins before we die....your “ Gospel” in a nutshell ...

Ezekiel's, too.

Eze 33:11, Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 33:12, Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
Eze 33:13, When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
Eze 33:14, Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
Eze 33:15, If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 33:16, None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
Eze 33:17, Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.
Eze 33:18, When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
Eze 33:19, But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
Eze 33:20, Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes, there was law between the time of Adam until Moses. Only that, it was in written in the hearts of men, and was not like so when God gave it as a code written in scriptures to Israel with the judgments and curses that go with it.

So, Paul was explaining in that passage that even before the Law of Moses, there was sin in the world. Only that, since there was not yet the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed as it was under the Law. That is why, Paul said in Gal. 3:19, that the law was added because of transgressions, before which, transgressions could not be imputed to man, as though it were no sin or as though they are not guilty of sin, or as though having no knowledge of sin, or as though there was no law and they could just do anything they like with impunity. This is why Paul said in Romans 3:20, that the law is the knowledge of sin and in Romans 7:13, that through the law, sin might appear and become exceedingly sinful. So here, we can appreciate why God gave the Law to Israel.

But it was a Covenantal Law, there were repercussions for both obeying it, and not obeying it.
God demanded adherence to it, and if so, for what purpose? Especially all the dietary, festival and sacrificial laws, which are entirely superfluous to us today. Clearly God offered redemption to those who were able to abide by the Law, with the allowance of failure by the sin offering. A sin offering, by definition, purges the culprit of guilt, ...until his next crime. This was the onerous and condemning, and thus temporal, aspect of the Law, and why it needed to be replaced.

Just because God instituted a new Law, of Faith, it does not mean that the former Law had no efficacy or purpose, other than ritual or formality. It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.

<<<God demanded adherence to it, and if so, for what purpose?>>>

Paul, in Gal.3:23-24 tells us that the law was given to keep them (who are under the Law) under guard, at least until Christ comes, and that the law is their tutor, teacher, schoolmaster, to bring them to the Savior, that is, the Christ, that they might be justified by faith.

<<<Just because God instituted a new Law, of Faith, it does not mean that the former Law had no efficacy or purpose, other than ritual or formality. >>>

First of all, faith is not new. Remember Abraham?

I have already told you what Paul said was the purpose of the law in Gal.3.

<<<It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.>>>

No doubt, the law has power and is good and holy, in the sense that it came from God. For nothing comes from God devoid of power. But the law was just simply not given for that purpose. As I pointed out what Paul said relative to that, saying “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.”

And yes it was a covenantal law, for God had chosen only the people of Israel and not all peoples, in line with His covenant with Abraham.

Tong
R1865

 

[DNB]

<<<God demanded adherence to it, and if so, for what purpose?>>>

Paul, in Gal.3:23-24 tells us that the law was given to keep them (who are under the Law) under guard, at least until Christ comes, and that the law is their tutor, teacher, schoolmaster, to them to the Savior, that is, the Christ, that they might be justified by faith.

<<<Just because God instituted a new Law, of Faith, it does not mean that the former Law had no efficacy or purpose, other than ritual or formality. >>>

First of all, faith is not new. Remember Abraham?

I have already told you what Paul said was the purpose of the law in Gal.3.

<<<It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.>>>

No doubt, the law has power and is good and holy, in the sense that it came from God. For nothing comes from God devoid of power. But the law was just simply not given for that purpose. As I pointed out what Paul said relative to that, saying “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.”

Tong
R1865

Paul said that after the fact. He was explaining how just the notion of Law implies sin. In a world where there is no evil intent, a Law becomes redundant or moot, this was Paul's point of discrediting the efficacy of the Law. The austerity of the Law is what caused men to sin/fail, plus the inherent enticement of it, but the fulfillment of it would've been the victor's glory.
It was a Covenant of blood, meaning it gave life, and could only be both ratified, and annulled with blood. The Law brought both life and death, but since death prevailed, God, by His grace and the obedience of one man, offered to rescind it. And this is the dichotomy that Paul speaks about, one Law bringing death, and the other life.