How was the law put in place by angels?

Explanation:

It was common in traditional Jewish thinking that the angels were involved in the giving of the law. The Old Testament does not state this specifically, but there are hints that the angels were present. In Deuteronomy 33:2 Moses blesses the people before his death and says that God came down from Sinai with thousands of holy ones at his right side. Of course, Sinai is the mountain where God gave his laws to Moses. Also, Psalm 68:17 mentions God and his myriad of chariots, as well as Sinai. According to rabbinic thought, the mention of chariots and Sinai had to do with the angels accompanying God there.⁵

We find in the New Testament the influence that the angels were involved in the giving of the law. For example, in Acts 7:38, Stephen says that the angel spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. In Hebrews 2:2 we read that the message declared by angels, which is the law, proved reliable. We also have extra-biblical sources that indicate the Jewish belief that the angels were involved in the giving of the law (Jub. 1.27–2.1; Philo, Somn. 1.143; Josephus, Ant. 15.136).⁶

So how were the angels involved in the giving of the law? Paul does not say for sure but based on the broad context of Galatians 3:19 we can plausibly deduce how the angels were involved in the giving of the law. Paul has been explaining that the Galatians are justified by faith in Christ, not by works of the law (Galatians 2:16). The fact is, God made a promise to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law was given, and the law does not annul the promise (Galatians 3:17). Paul explains that the law was given because of transgression, until Christ came (Galatians 3:19), and the law was given through the angels (Galatians 3:19). Paul’s point is that the promise to Abraham is superior to the law. That’s because the promise came first and was given directly to Abraham, while the law was given through angels and acted as a custodian until the promise could be fulfilled (Galatians 3:24–25). That the promise was given directly to Abraham, while the law was given through angels, suggests that God conveyed the laws to angels, who in turn conveyed them to Moses, who then conveyed them to the people.⁷

Counterargument:

The fact that the law was given by the angels suggests that God was not involved in the giving of the law. This makes better sense of the broader context of Galatians, because we know that Paul opposes those who think they are justified by the works of the law. Paul explains that the origin of the law was angels, not God, and so the works of the law will not justify anyone before God.⁸

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this view is that according to traditional Jewish thinking, the giving of the law through angels enhanced God’s glory.⁹ Also, it runs counter to much of the Old Testament, where we learn that God gave his law to the people of Israel (Exodus 20:1–23:19). Further, Paul writes that the law was put in place through angels. The verb to put in place is in the passive voice, which indicates that the law did not originate with the angels, but was passed on through them.¹⁰ Further, the preposition through is often taken in an instrumental sense, as in, the angels were the instruments God used to put the law in place.¹¹ Given the passive form of to put in place, and the fact that the Jews’ positive view of the angel’s involvement of the giving of the law, the instrumental sense of through makes most sense. This means that the law did not originate with the angels, but was given through the angels.

Explanation:

It was common in Jewish thought to hold that the angels were involved in the giving of the law. Paul uses this insight to show that the promises to Abraham, which have to do with faith in Christ, are superior to the law. Paul does this by showing that God was twice removed from the people when he gave them the law. On the other hand, the promise, which has to do with faith in Christ, was given directly to Abraham.¹²

Paul illustrates that God was twice removed from the giving of the law when he says that it was given through angels, by a mediator. While it might not be right away clear how the angels were involved in the giving of the law, we can draw some conclusions once we understand that the law was given through the angels, by a mediator. The phrase by a mediator likely refers to Moses.^{13,14,15,16,17,18} We can deduce this because the Greek phrase that Paul uses here is ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου (by a mediator). In the Septuagint we find the almost identical phrase ἐν χειρὶ Μωυσῆ (by Moses), to indicate that Moses relayed the law to the people (Leviticus 26:46; Numbers 4:37, Numbers 4:41, Numbers 4:45, Numbers 4:49; Numbers 10:13; Numbers 15:13; Joshua 21:2, Joshua 22:9 and many others).¹⁹ Paul is highlighting that the promise, which has to do with faith in Christ, was given directly to Abraham, while the law was given through angels by Moses. Of course, we know that Moses met God on Mount Sinai, where he received the laws that he would give to the people. This implies that God was at least once removed from the people, because the laws came to the people, not from God directly, but through the mediator Moses. Now Paul is pointing that in fact, God was twice removed from the people, because not only were the laws given to the people through Moses, but Moses received the laws not directly from God but through angels. This implies that the way angels were involved in the giving of the law is that God conveyed the laws to the angels, who conveyed them to Moses, who conveyed them to the people.

Counterargument:

It is possible that Paul has in mind Moses when he says that the law was given through angels by a mediator, but he might also have Christ in mind. We know that Christ is the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6), so it is possible that the law was given through angels by Christ. Of course, we know that Christ is God, so if this is the case, the notion that Christ was involved in the giving of the law undermines the idea that God was even once, let alone twice removed from the people when the law was implemented.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this view is that just because Jesus is called the mediator in one passage does not mean that every time the term mediator is used, it refers to Jesus. This means that we need to look at the context to decide who the referent of the term mediator might be. In the case of Galatians 3:19, Paul explains the event when the law was given to the people. Of course, we know from the Old Testament that the law was given through Moses, and that Jewish tradition has it that the angels were involved. Further, we know that Paul is contrasting the law with faith in Christ. Thus, the context favours the notion that Moses is the referent of the mediator in Galatians 3:19.

Added to this, the term ἐν χειρὶ was not chosen haphazardly by Paul. Rather, ἐν χειρὶ (by means of) is a Hebraism which is used twenty times in the Septuagint to refer to the fact that the laws were given by means of Moses.²⁰ The context, plus Paul’s use of the Hebraism ἐν χειρὶ (by means of), suggests that Paul has Moses in mind as the mediator. And if Paul has Moses in mind, his point is likely that the angels conveyed the laws to Moses, who conveyed them to Israel. Thus, God was twice removed from the giving of the law, while he gave his promises directly to Abraham.

When Exodus 20:1–26 describes the giving of the law, it has God giving the law directly to Moses, but this view implies that in fact angels were involved in the process. Further, if Paul wanted the Judaizers to see that the promise is superior to the law because God was twice removed when the law was given, he could have been much clearer. Paul never says that the promise was given directly while the law was not. He simply says that the law was given through angels by a mediator and leaves it to his audience to know what he means by that. Still, it is hard to see what else Paul could have in mind when he says that the law was given through angels, except that it is inferior to the promise because God did not give it to the people directly.