This is a Bible study on Exodus 24:1-11.

11 pages.

Exodus 24:1-11 - Paul's discussion of the Mosaic covenant in 2 Corinthians 3

Read Exodus 24:1-11.

The Appendix to the study on Exodus 24:1-11 examines the way in which the Apostle Paul affirms the Mosaic Covenant to be a covenant of grace and refutes the notion that it was in any way a covenant of works. Special attention is given to 2 Corinthians 3:12-18; Galatians 3:15-18; 3:19-25, 4:21-31; and Romans 10:1-8.

The Apostle Paul’s Discussion of the Mosaic Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:12-18🔗

Twice in this passage Paul speaks of the Mosaic Covenant as being in the process of “passing away.” Referring to that covenant in verse eleven, he speaks of “that which is passing away.” In verse fourteen, he informs us that “the old covenant,” i.e. the Mosaic Covenant, “is done away with in Christ.”

The Greek word Paul employs in both verses, (the passive form of the verb, καταργεω), has the following range of meanings: to be abolished; to be set aside; to be passing away. The New Testament lexicographers, Arndt & Gingrich, indicate that the term, especially when used in the passive form, has reference to that which is transitory.

The reason the old covenant was passing away, the reason it was transitory, is due to its provisional nature. We must appreciate the fact that the Mosaic Covenant made at Mt. Sinai was a provisional covenant. That is to say, it was not a final end in itself for the people of God; rather, it pointed forward to the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant of grace accomplished by the redeeming work of Jesus the Messiah. Because the Mosaic Covenant was provisional, it could not provide what it depicted, namely, the complete surrender of one’s life unto the LORD, featuring absolute compliance with His holy law.

The transitory, provisional, spiritually impotent character of the Mosaic Covenant explains why it proved to be “a ministration of death” (vs. 7) and “a ministration of condemnation” (vs. 9). Indeed, it proved to be “a ministration of death” precisely because it became “a ministration of condemnation.” Lacking the ability to fulfill their covenantal obligations, it should not come as a surprise that in Exodus 32 we read of Israel breaking the covenant by making the golden calf and worshiping it as a substitute for the LORD Himself. As a result of their breaking the covenant, we read of the LORD renouncing Israel,

7The LORD said to Moses, Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. 8They have been quick to depart from the way I commanded them... 9The LORD said to Moses, I have observed these people, they are an obstinate people. 10Now, therefore, leave me alone so that my anger may burn hot against them and that I may consume them. Then I will make you into a great nation. Ex. 32:7-10

Thus, the people made themselves liable to condemnation and the penalty of death. It required the mediatorship of Moses (Ex. 32:11-14, 30-32) to deliver them and preserve them until the time when the promised “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31-34) of eschatological fulfillment would be established by the work of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, when we consider the Apostle Paul’s teaching, especially in his Epistle to the Romans and that addressed to the Galatians, we find that the Jews came to misunderstand the very character of the Mosaic Covenant. They tragically came to regard it as a covenant of works and futilely sought to attain the righteousness that justifies a man before God by means of their attempted adherence to its demands.

The Apostle Paul’s Refutation of the Jews’ False Understanding of the Mosaic Covenant🔗

Consider the Apostle Paul’s analysis of Israel’s conduct as recorded in Romans 9:31-32, “Israel, who pursued a law, [i.e. a principle] of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith, but as it were by works.” Paul acknowledges that Israel, indeed, did set out on a course by which they hoped to attain the righteousness that is the prerequisite for justification; but, he continues, they did not achieve the goal. The reason for their failure is to be found in the fact that in their pursuit of the goal they employed the instrumentality of “works,” not the instrumentality of “faith.” As J. Murray writes, “‘Works’ indicates the conception entertained by Israel respecting the way by which justification was to be secured and the kind of righteousness constituting this justification.”1

When we consider Paul’s inspired analysis of Old Testament Israel’s condition, it is important to see that Israel chose the course of pursuing the prerequisite righteousness by means of “works,” this was not the way that was imposed upon them. (Notice the words of Murray, “‘Works’ indicates the conception entertained by Israel.”) A few verses later we find the apostle saying it again, “...being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). Paul makes the same point in Galatians 4:21, when he asks the question, “Tell me, you who desire to be under law, are you not aware of what the Law says?” Here he indicates that “the works of the law” was the course that the Jews desired and that was now also being urged upon the churches of Galatia. If we correctly understand the Apostle Paul’s analysis of Old Testament Israel, we maintain that the covenant nation voluntarily put themselves “under the law” in their attempt to produce the prerequisite righteousness, as opposed to being divinely placed “under the law,” by virtue of the inherent character of the Mosaic Covenant, as though that administration of the covenant was in some way a covenant of works.

But how did this transition come about? How did the covenant given at Mt. Sinai, the administration of the covenant of grace for the dispensation characterized by the Old Testament theocracy, morph into a covenant of works, something it was never intended to be?

Much of this may be attributed to that movement within Post-Exilic Judaism known as Pharisaism. The Pharisees “exercised a great influence over a period of about three centuries and did more than any other party to determine the shape of Judaism in the years to come, [i.e. following the time of their appearance circa 160 B.C.].”2 “And it is clear from the records,” continues D.S. Russell, “that Pharisaism was at heart legalistic in character...”3 Under the influence of the Pharisees, a re­interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, perverting it into a covenant of works, was extensively propagated among the covenant community. The chief instrument in propagating the Torah, and its misinterpretation, was the synagogue, “which became a most powerful institution within Judaism not only in Jerusalem, but also throughout the whole Dispersion.”4

This legalistic re-interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant even sought to infiltrate the Christian church. From Acts 15:5 we learn that in the midst of the Jerusalem Council, “...certain men of the sect of the Pharisees stood up, expressing their belief that 'it is necessary to circumcise them [i.e. the Gentile converts] and to charge them to keep the Law of Moses.’”

If these men, indeed, were practicing Pharisees who had not given up their belief in adherence to the Mosaic Law as the means of salvation, the question arises, “How did these Pharisees happen to be present at a council of the Christian church?” We would offer the following as a likely answer: One must bear in mind that the Pharisees were firm believers in the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts 23:8). Apparently, when the Lord Jesus was raised from the dead, and His disciples presented their irrefutable witness to His resurrection, some of the Pharisees acknowledged Him to be the Messiah and associated themselves with His church. But when they did so, they did not comprehend the gospel. Apparently, they only viewed the Lord Jesus as an example to be followed, rather than as the Savior to be trusted. They did not place their faith completely in Christ alone; rather, they sought to fit Christ into their religious system.

D. De Silva suggests that these men sought to place the work of Christ within the context of the old covenant, instead of recognizing Christ to be the fulfillment of the covenant, which Old Testament Israel had experienced in its provisional form. De Silva suggests that, as these men saw it, Christ would still be the one who brought light to the Gentiles, and would bring about the ingathering of the nations, but He would accomplish this by bringing the Gentiles into the community of ethnic Israel, by means of circumcision and their assuming “the yoke of the Law.”5 If, indeed, this is an accurate analysis of their agenda, it not only amounts to a reversion to the old provisional form of the covenant (cp. Gal. 4:9-10), but a total failure to comprehend the covenant to be a covenant of grace (cp. Gal. 3:15-18). It is this heretical doctrine of salvation by works, stemming from a misunderstanding of the Mosaic Covenant, which is repudiated and refuted throughout the New Testament epistles, and especially in the Pauline epistles.

The Apostle Paul’s Repudiation of the Pharisaic Misinterpretation of the Mosaic Covenant in the Epistle to the Galatians🔗

In Galatians 3:15-18 Paul refutes the idea that the Mosaic Covenant could be an intervening covenant of works in conflict with the original covenant of grace. In Galatians 3:19-25 he goes on to discuss the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant. Then, in Galatians 4:21-31, assuming the position of the Judaizers, he endeavors to lead them to see the folly of their teaching. We will now consider each one of these themes in greater detail.

We look first at Galatians 3:15-18. In verse 15, the apostle reminds the Galatians of the binding character of a covenant. Once a covenant has been ratified it becomes legally binding: it cannot be annulled; it cannot be altered by the addition of new terms that would conflict with the basic structure of the original covenant. If this holds true with regard to a man-made covenant, how much more is this true with regard to God’s covenant! In Numbers 23:19 there is revealed to us the unchangeable integrity of God: “God is not a man, that he should lie; nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The point being made in Galatians 3:15 is this: God’s covenant was established with Abraham; as such, it is a binding covenant that must be fulfilled and cannot be annulled or altered.

In verse sixteen, the Apostle Paul points out that God made this covenant with Abraham and Christ. The promises were spoken to Abraham and his offspring (or, seed). Paul is alluding to Genesis 13:14­-15,

14After Lot had separated himself from him, the LORD said to Abram, ‘Now lift up your eyes from the place where you are and look northward and southward and eastward and westward; 15because I will give to you and to your offspring forever all the land that you see.’

Paul is teaching that the LORD made His covenantal promises not to Abraham alone, but to Abraham and his offspring (Abraham’s one singular offspring).

Paul emphasizes the fact that the offspring referred to is not plural (“offsprings”), but singular (“offspring”)—one singular descendant of Abraham. Note Genesis 22:16-18, a passage in which the LORD distinguishes a singular offspring of Abraham:

16I have sworn by myself, declares the LORD... 17I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of the heavens and as the sand of the seashore. Your offspring shall take possession of the city of his enemies. 18By your offspring shall all the nations of the world be blessed. Gen. 22:16-18

Paul is emphasizing the fact that God’s covenant of promise was established with Abraham and Abraham’s one great Descendant; and that one great Descendant is Jesus, the Christ (the Messiah).

The point of Galatians 3:16 is this: Since the covenant was made with Abraham and his one great Descendant, Jesus Christ the Messiah, it was not possible for the covenant to be fulfilled prior to the coming of Christ into the world, and it certainly could not be nullified.

In verse seventeen, Paul concludes that the law given at Mt. Sinai cannot nullify the original covenant of promise. The law was given 430 years after the covenant of promise was ratified; but it was given centuries before Christ had come into the world. So then, the law given at Mt. Sinai could not possibly serve as a new covenant, replacing the original covenant that had been previously ratified but was not yet fulfilled.

Verse eighteen points out the radical difference between the law as a possible way of salvation and the way of salvation by means of the covenant of promise (or, grace). Salvation by the law requires trust in one’s self and one’s own personal ability to fulfill the perfect requirements of the moral law of God. Salvation by the covenant of promise requires trust in the LORD that He will provide the means of salvation; He will provide the necessary works to fulfill the covenant and grant salvation to all who trust in Him. Thus, the Mosaic Covenant, (even though it prominently features the law), cannot possibly be a new and different type of covenant, a covenant based on works. If it were, it would introduce such new and different conditions for salvation that it would amount to nothing less than an annulment of the original covenant and the establishment of a completely new and different covenant. Although the giving of the law was a significant feature of the Mosaic Covenant, one must not draw the conclusion that the law is the fundamental character of the Mosaic Covenant, identifying it as a covenant of works.

Having demonstrated that the Mosaic Covenant could not possibly have been a covenant of works, the apostle now goes on to address the question, “What then is the law?” (i.e. What is the purpose of the law?) He then proceeds to answer this question by revealing the unique purpose of each aspect of the O.T. Mosaic law. Now it is well known that Paul employs the term “law” in a variety of ways; at times “the law” is a reference to the entire Pentateuch (cf. Gal. 4:21), at other times “the law” is a reference to the body of Mosaic legislation. Given the fact that Paul uses this one term (“the law”) in numerous ways, it should not be surprising that even when describing the Mosaic legislation, the singular term, “the law,” may indiscriminately be used to describe the various aspects of that legislation. As we understand it, this is precisely what the apostle now proceeds to do.

Verses 19-20 cannot be a reference to the moral law, for Paul explicitly states that the law of which he is speaking pertains “until the offspring had come to whom the promise had been made.” The moral law has perpetual and everlasting relevance, being the reflection of God’s holy character, the obedience to which is one of the great purposes of redemption. Furthermore, here in Galatians 3:19 Paul declares that the particular part of the O.T. law of which he speaks “was added for the sake of the transgressions.” The term he uses (προτιθημι) has the implication of being a gracious provision, something the LORD provided, or granted, as a means of dealing with transgressions.

Thus, when Paul declares, “The law...was added because of the transgressions,” we believe that he is especially referring to what we might call the sacrificial laws, (or, might we say, the sacrificial aspect of the Law). The Old Testament sacrificial laws gave the prescribed sacrifices that were required for atonement during the Old Testament dispensation. Hence, by means of its sacrificial provisions the law reveals that God Himself provides the atoning sacrifice for sinners. The apostle goes on to write, “The law...was added because of the transgressions until the offspring had come to whom the promise had been made.” The sacrificial laws were in effect until the Messiah came to offer Himself as the truly acceptable sacrifice for sin.

It is in Galatians 3:21-22 that Paul focuses on the moral law. He begins by presents a hypothetical situation: ”if a law had been given that was able to give life, [then] certainly righteousness would have been by the law” (vs. 21). That is to say, if God had given a law that would not only declare to man what is right, but would also have caused us to do what is right, then righteousness and acceptance with God would have come by that law. Galatians 3:22 now proceeds to present the actual state of affairs: the Scripture “has confined all things under the dominion of sin.” That is to say, the moral law of God proclaims the righteous demands of our holy God, and by doing so exposes all men to be sinners, and thus declares us all as being liable to the righteous judgment of God. The Scripture “has confined all things under the dominion of sin so that what was promised, being received by faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.” So it is that the moral law, even as it reveals the standard that governs life in the kingdom of God, at the same time demonstrates to us our inability to meet that standard by our own efforts and impresses upon us our need for the grace of God; it points us away from ourselves to Christ as the only One who can meet our need and provide for our salvation.

According to verses 23-25 of Galatians 3, the law, (this time the ceremonial law is in view), was given to stimulate the desire for salvation. Paul writes, “The law became our guardian.” In Greek society a guardian (παιδαγωγοs) was a slave who was put in charge of his master’s son during the years of the child’s adolescence—from 6-14 years of age. It is important to understand that this slave was not a teacher, or pedagogue, but a guardian, responsible for the child’s safety, protecting him from the evils of society. The guardian had constant and total supervision over the child, regulating all of the child’s activities and acquaintances. Throughout antiquity, such guardians were known for their sour disposition and severity; the child longed for the day when he would come of age and be released from the custody of his guardian. But until that day, the guardian’s main function was to keep the child under constant surveillance, protecting him from evil and making him stay in line with his father’s requirements. Paul informs us that the Old Testament law, especially the ceremonial law with all of its regulations, served the function of being a spiritual “guardian:” through its multitude of ordinances and regulations, the Old Testament law kept the people of Israel under constant surveillance and separation from the Gentile world. “The law became ourguardian for Christ.” The Old Testament (ceremonial) law served this function of “guardian” in order to guard the people for Christ (so that they would not drift into paganism). At the same time, it created in their hearts the desire for the salvation Christ would bring.

Thus, in our analysis, the message of Galatians 3:19-25 is this: The law was never intended to replace the covenant of promise; the law was never intended to replace faith as the way of salvation. On the contrary, the sacrificial law was intended to illustrate the way of salvation; one purpose of the moral law was to demonstrate our inability to supply the required righteousness by relying upon our own endeavors, and thereby show our need for salvation; and the ceremonial law was intended to stimulate a desire for the salvation that only Christ Himself could accomplish.

With regard to Galatians 4:21-31, we would maintain that Paul, in discussing the Mosaic Covenant, is here adopting the misunderstanding that was prevalent among Israel and that was presently being foisted upon the Galatian church. He is arguing from the assumptions being made by the Judaizers in an endeavor to demonstrate to the church the implications and ultimate consequence of adopting their distorted perspective with regard to the Mosaic Covenant. In so doing, Paul is following the principle of argument advocated in Proverbs 26:5, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceits.”

Momentarily adopting the Judaizers’ point of view, Paul now applies their misunderstanding to the O.T. figures of Sarah and Hagar in order to demonstrate the ultimate and tragic result of that misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant.

To illustrate his point, Paul asserts that the two women (Hagar and Sarah) who bore Abraham’s two sons represent, or illustrate, two different types of covenants. “Hagar represents Mt. Sinai,” (which was the place where the Ten Commandments were given). She is also identified with “the present [earthly] Jerusalem,” the home of the heretical teachers (i.e. the Judaizers) who were advocating personal adherence to the law as the way of salvation. Paul points out that Hagar bears children for “bondage;” because she was a slave woman, Hagar’s child inherited from her the status of slavery.

Thus, Paul connects the Judaizers (“the present Jerusalem”) with Mt. Sinai, (which the Judaizers interpreted to be a covenant of law), and bondage. His point is that the Judaizers’ misinterpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, (viewing it as a covenant of law), results in bondage. What the apostle wants the Galatians to understand is the fact that those who pursue the course of salvation by means of the law are consigning themselves to bondage. The commandments serve as prosecutor, demonstrating us to be lawbreakers, and as jailer, holding us in bondage for final sentencing, and eventually condemnation; just as Hagar’s son, Ishmael, was finally cast out. Sarah, it is implied, represents the covenant of promise the LORD made with Abraham, (note Gen. 15:1-6,17-18a).

Romans 10:1-15 and the Mosaic Covenant🔗

At first glance, it appears that Paul’s quotation of Leviticus 18:5 is confirmation that the Mosaic Covenant was, indeed, a covenant of works: “Moses writes that the man that does the righteousness that is of the law shall live thereby” (Rom. 10:5). But upon closer examination, one discovers that Paul has intentionally taken Leviticus 18:5 “out of context.” We quote J. Murray,

...[Leviticus 18:5 in its original context] does not appear in a context that deals with legal righteousness as opposed to that of faith. Leviticus 18:5 occurs in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel. In this respect, Leviticus 18:1-5 is parallel to Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6­ 21. The preface is, “I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 18:2), and corresponds to the preface to the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). The whole passage [i.e. Lev. 18:1-5] is no more “legalistic” than are the Ten Commandments. Hence, [in the original context] the words, “which if a man do he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), refer not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework, but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God.6

The question is not, “How is it possible that the apostle would quote Leviticus 18:5 out of context?” The question is, rather, “Why would he do so?” The primary reason he does so, in our opinion, is that he might proceed to present the true essence of the Mosaic Covenant in striking contrast to the misunderstanding of that covenant that was so widely propagated by the Pharisaic element in Judaism, and which, as we noted, was seeking to infiltrate the Christian Church. Thus, in Romans 10:5 the apostle presents the misconception of the Mosaic Covenant and then in Romans 10:6-8 he provides the true essence of that covenant. At the very outset it is significant to note that it was Moses who wrote the words of Leviticus 18:5, it was also Moses who spoke the words of Deuteronomy 30:12-14.

It may be well for us to start by setting before us the passage of Romans where the apostle alludes to and quotes from Deuteronomy 30:12-14,

6But the righteousness that is by faith says, Do not say in your heart, ‘Who shall ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or, ‘Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? The word is near you; in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith we are preaching. Rom. 10:6-8

In Deuteronomy it is Moses (the mediator, or, administrator, of the covenant) who speaks the words found in Deuteronomy 30:11-14. But notice that Paul identifies the speaker as “the righteousness that is by faith.” So, by interpreting the voice of Moses (the mediator/administrator of the covenant) as being the voice of “the righteousness that is by faith,” Paul is immediately indicating that the essence of the covenantal obligation is faith (dependence upon the LORD) as the means of attaining righteousness, (“righteousness” both in the sense of justification and sanctification). To state it another way, the Old Testament covenant ratified at Mt. Sinai was a covenant of grace, a continuation of the covenant originally made with Abraham (and with Adam, see Gen. 3:15).

At this point it is helpful to set before us the passage of Deuteronomy 30:11-14, the meaning of which the Apostle Paul is expounding in Romans 10:6-8,

11...this commandment [or, precept] which I command you today, it is not too hard for you, nor is it far off. 12It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 13Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 14But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.Deut. 30:11-14

Deuteronomy 30:12-13 asks the questions, “Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us?” and, “Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us?" The Apostle Paul interprets this as meaning, “Who shall ascend into heaven in order to bring Christ down?” or, “Who shall descend into the deep in order to bring Christ up from the dead?” The pronoun “it” (of Deut. 30:12-13) and “the word” (of Deut. 30:14) both refer back to the “commandment,” or, better, “the precept,” spoken of in Deuteronomy 30:11. The Hebrew term, מִץְהן, translated “commandment” in verse 11, (“this commandment that I command you today”), also has the meaning, “precept.” By definition, a “precept” is “a principle intended as a general rule of action,” or, we might say, “a governing principle.” Thus, what Moses is alluding to in this passage is the governing principle, the covenantal obligation, by which the covenant is fulfilled.

In light of the Apostle Paul’s inspired interpretation of this Deuteronomic passage, it becomes evident that that principle is one of faith, as opposed to works. It should be noted that whereas Moses speaks of the principle of faith (using such terms as “it” and “the word”), Paul immediately transitions beyond the principle to Christ, the object of our faith. But all this is implied within the Mosaic presentation, since the principle Moses was presenting is nothing other than faith in the LORD as being the operative principle of the covenant.

So, when alluding to Deuteronomy 30:11-14, the Apostle Paul brings out the true essence of that passage in the light of New Testament revelation. Paul tells us that no one needs to raise the question, “Who shall ascend into heaven in order to bring Christ down?” There is no need to do so, because the Father Himself has taken the initiative to send His one and only Son into the world (Jn. 3:16). Neither need anyone raise the question, “Who shall descend into the deep in order to bring Christ up from the dead?” Once again, there is no need to do so, because God has already taken the initiative in raising His Son from the dead (Acts 3:15). The whole thrust of Paul’s argument is this: There is no need to undertake the futile task of seeking to do that which is impossible for man to accomplish. God has already taken the initiative—as He did with Abram (Gen. 15:1) and as He did with Israel (Ex. 20:1-3)—and He has already accomplished it. God has done it by means of the gospel, the essence of which was already proclaimed to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and which also forms the foundation of the Mosaic Covenant.

Then, in keeping with his earlier identification of Moses’ voice with “the righteousness that is by faith,” Paul now identifies “the word” mentioned in Deuteronomy 30:14 as being “the word of faith we proclaim” (Rom. 10:8). Thus, Paul explains that the “it” of Deuteronomy 30:12,13, (“the word” of Deut. 30:14, the “commandment/precept” of Deut. 30:11), or, as we may express it, the operative principle of the covenant, is faith (as opposed to works). Furthermore, that covenantal obligation of faith is most fully expressed in the gospel, because it is in the gospel that we are most clearly confronted with the object of our faith, the Lord Jesus Christ. Commenting on this verse, J. Murray remarks, this is a reference to “the word to which faith is directed;”7 that “word” to which faith is directed is the gospel, or stated another way, it is Christ.

Now we may proceed to complete the connection between the original text of Deuteronomy 30:11­ 14 and the Apostle Paul’s New Testament usage of that passage. But before actually doing so, we must appreciate the fact that the whole focus of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is on the comprehensibility and accessibility of the covenantal obligation, or, requirement. In Deuteronomy 30:11 Moses reminds Israel that the commandment/precept he has given them “is not too hard for you,” (the translation found in The American Standard Version), or, as The New International Version translates, it “is not too difficult for you.” But in what sense is it “not too difficult”? What is being spoken of here is not difficulty with regard to doing; rather it is difficulty with regard to comprehending. The point being made is that the commandment, (i.e. the covenantal obligation), is not too hard to grasp; it is not unintelligible. The same Hebrew word, xcלָ פָּ, is also found in Deuteronomy 17:8; there it clearly conveys the sense of something being “too difficult to grasp;” namely, a case at law that is too perplexing for the judges to decide on their own.8

In verses 12-13 of Deuteronomy 30, Moses is stressing the fact that the commandment/precept, (again, “commandment” is here used in the sense of the operative principle of the covenant, or, the covenantal obligation), is not incomprehensible or inaccessible to God’s people. It is not something they must fetch from heaven or seek to reclaim from the depths of the sea. On the contrary, the word is very near to them, it is in their mouth and in their heart (vs. 14). As Charles Hodge comments, “to be in the mouth and in the heart,” is an Old Testament expression meaning that something is accessible or familiar.9 Hence, the focus of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is on the comprehensibility and accessibility of the covenantal obligation.

What exactly was that obligation, or, requirement? It should have been obvious to the people that it was nothing other than faith. From the time they departed from Egypt right up until the time they stood at the base of Mt. Sinai, the Old Testament covenant people had been taught the principle of placing their faith in their ever-faithful God. On every occasion when human ability proved to be utterly futile, (standing at the edge of the Red Sea, finding themselves in a waterless wasteland, etc.), the LORD proved Himself to be their all-sufficient Redeemer. Now, when confronted with the requirement of living out the new life of righteousness, it should have been evident to the covenant nation that they should depend upon the LORD to produce for them and within them that required righteousness. If we may so express it, Israel should have echoed the words of Augustine: “LORD, give what you command, and command what you will” (Confessions 10.29.40).

The obligation, the requirement, of the covenant is faith. It always has been faith, and this Paul makes clear when he identifies the voice of Moses (the Old Testament covenant mediator) as being the voice of “the righteousness that is by faith.” Faith was the condition specified when the covenant was originally established with Abram (Gen. 15:6), faith was depicted in the covenant ratified at Mt. Sinai, and in the gospel, faith is explicitly presented as the means of receiving the salvation accomplished by Christ (Acts 16:30-31; Jn. 6:28-29). Paul asserts that the requirement of faith should be evident to the people of Israel, since faith was the requirement of the original covenant the LORD had made with their great forefather Abraham (Gen. 15:6).

Thus, in Romans 10:6-8 the Apostle Paul is establishing two things simultaneously: 1) the essence and character of the Mosaic Covenant was grace, with its obligation of faith; and, 2) the ultimate object of faith is the gospel, or more precisely, the Christ who is presented in the gospel.

Endnotes🔗

  1. ^ J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2 Reprint, (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish. Co., 1971), 43.
  2. ^ D.S. Russell, Between the Testaments, (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1960), 49-50.
  3. ^ D.S. Russell, Between the Testaments, 50-51.
  4. ^ D.S. Russell, Between the Testaments, 51.
  5. ^ David De Silva, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Downers Grove IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 498-499.
  6. ^ J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2, 249.
  7. ^ J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2, 54.
  8. ^ C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, Commentaries on the Old Testament, Reprint, (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish. Co., 1971), 454.
  9. ^ Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, Reprint, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 340.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.