bvman3
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF MAN
The activity of the wrath of God is not an impersonal law of retribution or the inevitable moral effect of sin, as advocated by C. H. Dodd. [1] The wrath of God is God’s personal reaction to man’s sin. This is seen in the Old Testament writers’ use of strong personal terms when speaking of the wrath of God.
“1 O God, Thou has rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou has been angry; … 2 Thou hast made the land quake; Thou hast split it open; … 3 Thou hast made Thy people experience hardship; Thou hast given us wine to drink that make us stagger.”
(Psa. 60:1-3 NAS)
“27 Behold, the name of the Lord comes from a remote place; Burning is His anger, and dense is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation, and His tongue is like a consuming fire; 28 And His breath is like an overflowing torrent, Which reaches to the neck, To shake the nations back and forth in a sieve, And to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which leads to ruin …
30 And the Lord will cause His voice of authority to be heard. And the descending of His arm to be seen, And in the flame of a consuming fire, In a cloudburst, downpour, and hailstones, 31 For at the voice of the Lord Assyria will be terrified, When He strikes with the rod.” (Isa. 30:27-28, 30-31 NAS)
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; …” (Jer. 23:20 NAS)
“8 Now I will shortly pour out My wrath on you, and send My anger against you, judge you according to your ways, and bring on you all your abominations. 9 And My eye will show no pity, nor will I spare. I will repay you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst; then you will know that I, the Lord, do the smiting.” (Ezek. 7:8-9 NAS).
The psalmist and prophets could hardly have expressed more strongly the personal aspect of God’s wrath. The wrath of God in these passages is definitely not an impersonal, inexorable law of moral retribution. God personally wills His deeds of wrath against man’s sin. And because God is so personally active in His deeds of wrath, He can exercise His mercy, allowing His wrath to be turned away.
“9 He will not always chide, nor will He keep His anger forever. 10 He does not deal with us according to our sin, nor requite us according to our iniquities. 11 For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His steadfast love toward those who fear Him; 12 As far as the east is from the west, So far does he remove our transgressions from us.” (Psa. 103:9-12)
“2 Thou didst forgive the iniquity of Thy people; Thou didst cover all their sin. 3 Thou didst withdraw all Thy fury; Thou didst turn away from Thy burning anger.” (Psa. 85:2-3 NAS)
“18 Who is a God like Thee, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His inheritance? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in lovingkindness. 19 He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities underfoot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depth of the sea.” (Micah 7:18-19)
(See also Exodus 34:6-7; Numbers 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Psa. 30:5; 86:15; 145:8; Isa. 57:16; Lam. 3:22-23; Joel 2:12-13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:2-3.)
That God will have mercy, turning away His wrath, is not contradicted by the statement that “the anger of the Lord will not turn back” (Jer. 23:10), for this does not mean that He is implacable, only that He is not diverted from His purposes by puny man. “The anger of the Lord will not be turned back until He has performed and carried out the purpose of His heart…” (Jer. 23:20). This statement is just a denial of the pagan idea that God will accept a bribe to appease His anger.
The means by which God’s wrath may be turned aside involves the purging of the sin. This may be done, for example, by completely destroying the offending city (Deut. 13:15-17), slaying those who had sinned as at Baal-Peor (Num. 25:4), releasing captives (II Chron. 28:11-13), putting away heathen wives (Ezra 10:14). The putting away of sin involves a change of heart attitude, repentance (Jonah 3:7,10), humbling oneself (II Chron. 12:7), circumcising the heart (Jer. 4:4) and doing judgment (Jer. 21:12). It is the absence of this inward change of heart and attitude and the corresponding outward change in actions that brought about the rejection and condemnation by the psalmists and prophets of the divinely appointed system of offerings and sacrifices. (I Sam. 15:22; Psa. 51:16-17; Hosea 6:6. See also Psa. 4:5; 40:6-8; 50:7-23; 69:30-31; Prov. 15:8; 21:3; Isa. 1:11-17; Jer. 7:21-26; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8.)
These divinely appointed offerings and sacrifices were intended to be a means of turning away God’s wrath, but the absence of a correct inward heart attitude and the corresponding correct outward actions made them into an empty ritual and an abomination to God. Without repentance and faith they ceased to be an atonement or means of propitiation.
ENDNOTES
The law of God intensifies the wrath of God against sin: “For the law works wrath” (Rom. 4:15a ERS). With the introduction of the law, sin becomes a transgression (parabasis, a going aside, a deviation, hence, a violation) of the law.
“But where there is no law neither is there transgression” (Rom. 4:15b ERS).
A transgression of the law is sin, but sin is more than just a transgression of the law and it may exist where the law of God does not exist.
“For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom. 5:13 ERS).
In the period between Adam and Moses, before the law was given, there was no law. But in this period before the law “sin was in the world.” Men were sinning. Sin existed where the law did not exist. From the Biblical point of view sin must be understood and defined in terms of God and not in terms of the law. Sin is any choice that is contrary to faith in the true God — “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23 KJV). A transgression of the law is sin but sin is not just a transgression of the law. The King James Version mistranslates the statement in I John 3:4: he hamartia estin he anomia. It should be translated “sin is lawlessness” (RSV,NEB,NIV) not “sin is the transgression of the law” (KJV). The Greek word anomia basically may mean either “no law” or “against law.” Hence, it means “anarchy” or “rebellion.”
“Freely translated v.4 would then be to the effect that ‘he who commits sin is thereby in revolt against; indeed, sin is nothing but rebellion against God.'” [1]
The law came in alongside in order that the transgression might abound (Rom. 5:20b). Thus through the law sin became exceedingly sinful (Rom. 7:13b). “Since through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20b; see also Rom. 7:7b), the law shows what sin is and thus makes clear the true character of sin and that the basic sin is idolatry (Exodus 20:3-6; Deut. 5:7-10; 6:13-15; 8:19; 11:16-17; 29:24-27; 30:17-18). But this does not mean that sin is to be defined in terms of the law. The law just exposes its true character. The law not only reveals what sin is but also God’s direct opposition to man’s sin, that is, the wrath of God which is the curse of the law.
“Cursed is every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10 ERS; see also Deut. 27:26; 29:27).
Thus the law brings the wrath of God, not directly by means of an inevitable moral process of cause and effect, but indirectly by showing what is God’s personal reaction to man’s sin. What is the law? The term “law” is used most often in the Bible, especially in the New Testament (Matt. 5:18) and Christian theology, to refer to the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21), sometimes improperly called the moral law. Sometimes it is used to refer to the whole law of Moses, ceremonial as well as the Ten Commandments, statutes and ordinances (Luke 2:22; John 7:23). Sometimes it is also used to refer to the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch (Matt. 12:5; Luke 2:23-24; 16:16; 24:44; Rom. 3:21) as well as the whole Old Testament (John 10:34, quoting Psa. 82:6; I Cor. 14:21, quoting Isa. 28:11). The Hebrew word for law, torah, means direction, guidance, instruction, teaching. As such it is that content of God’s revelation of Himself which makes clear man’s relationship to God and to his fellowman. It provides guidance of man’s actions in relationship to God and to his fellowman. Thus it is the Word of the Lord (Deut. 5:5; Psa. 119:43, 160). It is first of all about God’s act of redemption of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6; Psa. 119:174 parallelism) and then about man’s obedient response to this act (Ex. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:7-21). The law is the covenant that God made with the children of Israel through Moses (Ex. 24:1-12). The commandments of the law are based upon the grace of God who provided redemption from Egypt (Deut. 4:37-40; Psa. 119:146) and are the terms of God’s covenant with His people (Ex. 19:3-8; Deut. 5:1-3). In contrast to the covenants with Noah (Gen. 9:8-17) and with Abraham (Gen. 15:12-18; 17:1-14), which were covenants of sheer grace, the Mosaic covenant is conditional. God made unconditional promises to Noah and Abraham of what He would do. The blessings of these covenants were unconditional. The blessings of the Mosaic covenant are, on the other hand, conditioned upon obedience (Deut. 28:1-14) and the curses upon disobedience (Deut. 28:15-20; 30:1-20). These conditions are given in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:6-21) and other statutes and ordinances.
What is the difference between law and grace? The difference is not: rules and no rules. The difference is in the relationship of the blessing to obedience. Under the law the bestowal of the blessing is conditioned upon obedience; obey in order to be blessed (Ezek. 18). Under grace the blessing is bestowed unconditionally to bring about obedience: obey because you are already blessed (John 13:34; Eph. 4:32; Titus 2:11-12; I John 3:3; 4:11, 19). Grace appeals to the unconditioned prior bestowal of the blessing as the grounds of obedience. Law, on the other hand, appeals to obedience as the ground of the bestowal of the blessing.
The Mosaic covenant is not pure law but is based on the grace of God who graciously provided redemption for the children of Israel and who in free grace chose to establish His covenant with them. This redemption by God from Egypt is the grounds of the appeal for obedience to the terms of the covenant which are stated in the Ten Commandments.
“2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:2-3)
This is the order of grace; obey because you are already blessed. But the Mosaic covenant is not pure grace because the blessings of the covenant are conditioned upon Israel’s obedience.
“15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in His ways, and keeping His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you this day, that you shall perish, you shall not live long in the land which you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.” (Deut. 30:15-20)
This is the order of law. Obey in order to be blessed. The Mosaic covenant is a mixed covenant of grace and law. What is the purpose of the law? Being a clarification of man’s relationship to God, the purpose of the law is to expose the nature of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7b) and God’s reaction to man’s sin in the form of wrath (the curse of the law; see Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:10). Therefore, to the question: “Why the law?” Paul answers in Gal. 3:19:
“It was added because of transgressions, … until the seed [Christ, Gal. 3:16]
should come to whom the promise had been made.” (cf. Rom. 5:20)
Until Christ came, the Jews were kept under the law (Gal. 3:23) as a tutor (Gal. 3:24) who guarded the immature child until he became a mature son (Gal. 4:1-2). Therefore, the law was a temporary arrangement (Heb. 7:18; 9:9-10). The Mosaic law was given only to Israel (Deut. 4:7-8,32-33,36; Psa. 147:19-20). From Adam to Moses there was no law (Rom. 5:13-14), and the Gentiles do not have the law ( Rom. 2:14, twice).
The Scriptures, and in particular the Apostle Paul, do not teach that there is a law of nature, lex naturae, after Stoic fashion. In Romans 2:15 Paul does not say that the Gentiles have “the law” (ho nomos) written on the heart, but that the “the work of the law” (to ergon tou nomou) is written on their hearts. In this passage Paul is not talking about having the law but about keeping or fulfilling the law. In the context Paul is contrasting the Jew who has the law but does not keep it with the Gentile who does not have the law but does what the law commands. Having the law is not sufficient.
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rom. 2:13 ERS).
It is these particular actions of the Gentiles, which are in harmony with the law, that Paul is referring to when he says that the work of the law is written on their hearts. For it is from the heart, where the decisions are made, that the work of the law comes. Grammatically the word “written” (grapton) agrees with the word “work” (ergon), and not with the word “law” (tou nomou). The work, not the law, is written on the heart. For if Paul had said that the law was written on the heart, he would be saying that the Gentiles had the law in a more intimate way than the Jews had it. The latter had it written only on the tables of stone or in a book. Moreover, Paul would also be saying that the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts which provision was only promised in the new covenant.
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jer. 31:33)
But in the preceding verse 14 (Rom. 2:14), Paul specifically says that the Gentiles do not have the law.
“14 For when Gentiles, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:14-15a ERS)
And he says it twice in that one verse alone, so that there will be no misunderstanding. We must be careful not to read into Paul any Stoic-like concept of the law of nature, lex naturae, that is the exact opposite of what he here intended or meant. The conscience does not contain an absolute standard of right and wrong as implied in the Stoic law of nature. The standard that conscience uses to judge the action of the will is relative to the ultimate criterion that the person has chosen. That is, the god that a person has chosen and worships supplies the standards of the conscience. This is why not every person has the same feelings of guilt or responsibility for his decisions or actions (I Cor. 10:28-29; 8:7). The conscience can be modified (seared or hardened, I Tim. 4:2) by rejecting the judgments of the conscience (I Tim. 1:19-20). And a weak conscience can be made strong by the increase of knowledge (I Cor. 8:7). The fact that everybody’s conscience has a standard does not mean that all have the same standard. There is not in everyone’s conscience a universal standard, lex naturae.
[The double genitive absolute phrase in Rom. 2:15b, “their conscience bearing witness and their conflicting thoughts accusing or even excusing”, is a grammatically independent clause. It should be taken with the sentence that follows, which is the usual syntax, and not with the preceding subordinate clause. It should be translated as follows:
“15b As their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accusing or even excusing, 16 in that day, God will judge the hidden things of men according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:15b-16 ERS)
This makes good sense if the Stoic teaching concerning the law of nature in the conscience is not read into the context.] Can man keep the law? Yes, he can; that is, man is able to choose to do what the law commands.
“11 For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither 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?’ 14 But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.” (Deut. 30:11-14)
But man does not do it (Rom. 3:10-12; Jer. 4:22; Psa. 10:4; 14:1-3; 53:1-3). Why? He is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), and he sins because he is spiritually dead (Rom. 5:12d). The law cannot make alive and thus produce righteousness.
“Is the law then against the promise of God? Certainly not; for if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.” (Gal. 3:21)
Although the law is God’s revelation of Himself, the Word of the Lord (Deut. 5:5; Psa. 119:43, 160), it contains only a knowledge about God and not a personal knowledge of God. But more basically, this knowledge is only about God’s act of redemption of the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt, and not of the salvation of man from death and sin. The situation of man spiritually has not been altered by this act of God or the giving of the law. Man is still spiritually dead. Therefore, because the law contains only the knowledge about a national, political-sociological act of God and not about God’s of act of salvation from death, nor a personal revelation of Himself to the heart of man that makes him alive, the law cannot make alive. On the contrary, the law presupposes the possession of life and righteousness. The keeping of the law only guarantees the continuance of life (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 30:18-20; Ezek. 18:5-9,21-23, 27-28; 20:11; Luke 10:27-28) already possessed. The choice between life and death in Deut. 30:15-20 is the choice between physical life and physical death, not between spiritual life and spiritual death, which choice is only presented under grace in the preaching of the gospel. The choice of faith in Jesus Christ is the choice of spiritual and eternal life in Christ, for He is the life (I John 5:11-12). Of course, it is also the choice of physical life and the resurrection from physical death at His second coming. The law could not make alive physically, spiritually, or eternally, but only guaranteed the continuance and elongation of physical life ( Deut. 30:18-20). From the Biblical point of view the law has three serious weaknesses (Rom. 8:3).
(1) The law cannot remove the wrath of God but causes wrath (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:10; the curse of the law = the wrath of God). And the law cannot remove the wrath of God because
(2) it cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:1-4, 15-18). Not only is the law unable to take away sin, but it causes sin (Rom. 7:5, 8, 11, 13). This is not because the law is evil (on the contrary, it is holy, righteous and good, Rom. 7:12) but because
(3) the law cannot make alive ( Gal. 3:21). The law cannot deliver man from the death that has been passed to him from Adam (Rom. 5:12, 15,17). On the contrary, it brings death (Rom. 7:10-11,13). The law makes death, primarily physical death, the result of personal sins (Ezek. 18:4, 20; Deut. 24:16; Isa. 59:2) and superimposes this relationship of death because of sin upon the more basic relationship of sin because of death (Rom. 5:12; Gal. 4:8). But the law did not change this more basic relationship; man sins because of spiritual death. And the law cannot remove this death, and therefore cannot remove sin. Also, since the law cannot make alive, it cannot produce righteousness ( Gal. 3:21) and therefore peace with God (Rom. 5:1).
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (Rom. 10:4) because He alone can and did remove death and does make alive and thereby righteous. The law has therefore a three-fold weakness: it cannot remove wrath, sin or death because it cannot produce peace with God, righteousness or life. There is no salvation by the law.
ENDNOTES ON “THE LAW OF GOD”
In Eph. 2:8-9 Paul contrasts salvation by grace with salvation by works. What is salvation by works? Salvation by works is a salvation that is earned; it is merited. “To the one working the reward is reckoned not according to grace [as a gift] but according to debt [something owed since it was earned]” (Rom. 4:4). The works that are supposed to earn salvation are more than just good works (good deeds or acts); they are meritorious works; they are good deeds that earn salvation. Each good work is regarded as having a certain quantity of merit attached to it; when the good work is done, the merit is imputed or reckoned to the account of the person performing the act. Correspondingly, each evil or bad work is regarded as having a certain quantity of demerit or negative merit (penalty or debt) attached to it so that the demerit is reckoned or imputed to the account of the person doing the evil work (or sin). At the final judgment each person’s account is balanced — the merits and demerits are weighed against each other. If the merit outweighs the demerit, that person is saved — he has earned eternal life. If the demerit outweighs the merit, that person is condemned — he is punished eternally for his sins. This merit scheme underlies and is implied by all teaching that salvation is by works.
The Bible very clearly teaches that salvation is not by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Salvation is by grace through faith. Man cannot be saved by his good works; he cannot earn salvation by his works. This is the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture. Salvation by grace and salvation by meritorious works are mutually exclusive and opposing ways of salvation. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Rom. 11:6)
Salvation is not by meritorious works, not because man is not able to do them, but because God does not deal with mankind on the basis of the merit scheme. As Jesus made clear in his parable of the householder (Matt. 20:1-16), God does not act toward us on the basis of our merit but on the basis of His generosity. And because God does not treat mankind according to their desserts, but according to His love, He often puts the least deserving before the more deserving. “The last will be first and the first last.” (Matt. 20:16; 19:30; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30) Because God ignores merits in His relationships to man, salvation is not by meritorious works. Salvation has nothing to do with merits.
The whole scheme of merit underlies and is implied by all teaching that salvation is by works. To reject salvation by works without rejecting the whole merit scheme is like treating the symptoms of disease without treating the disease. Salvation by works is a symptom of the disease of legalism.
What is legalism? Legalism does not mean just having rules or laws; it is a misuse of rules and laws. Theologically, legalism is a distortion of the law of God, a misunderstanding of the law given by God to Israel. The law of God is not legalism. It was a covenant relationship between God and the people of Israel. But unlike the covenants God made with Noah and with Abraham, which were covenants of sheer grace, with no conditions attached to the receiving of the blessings of the covenant, the Mosaic covenant was conditional. God made unconditional promises to Noah and to Abraham of what He, God Himself, would do. But the blessings of the Mosaic covenant were conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to God (Deut. 28:1-14); their disobedience to Him would bring curses upon them (Deut. 28:15-20; 30:1-20). These conditions are given in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:6-21) and other statutes and ordinances. These commandments were not an end in themselves; they were specific ways in which they were to obey God. The law is concerned with Israel’s personal relationship to God: to love and obey God and not to worship or serve other gods. The history of Israel shows that they did not obey God. They disobeyed Him by turning from Him to other gods. From the time of Moses through the times of the judges and kings they kept backsliding into idolatry. The prophets over and over again rebuked them for the sin of idolatry. The curses that God said He would bring upon them for their disobedience and idolatry (Deut. 28:36-52, 63-66; 29:24-28) came upon them; they were scattered among the nations: the northern tribes in 722 B.C. by Assyria and the southern tribes in 586 B.C. by Babylonia. When they returned from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, the Jews never again went into the idolatry of worshipping pagan gods. But it seems that very soon after the last of the O.T. prophets, Malachi, they developed an idolatry of the law. They began to trust in the law (Rom. 2:17). The law became an absolute standard to be obeyed. Obedience to the law subtly took the place of obedience to God. Keeping the law became a meritorious work that could earn God’s favor and blessings. Eventually there evolved the idea that one’s eternal destiny depends upon the amount of merit or demerit that one accumulates during one’s lifetime. This whole scheme of merit with its absolute standard of the law is what we mean by legalism.
Jesus and the early apostles, particularly Paul, opposed this Jewish legalism. Paul combated the Judaizers’ attempts to put Christians under the Mosaic law. When we realize the covenant nature of the law, we can see why this was not possible. Since the Christian’s relationship to God was already established in the New covenant, it could not at the same time be established under the Old Mosaic covenant. Then it must be that what the Judaizers were trying to do was to make the law in an absolute sense necessary for a right relationship to God, and that salvation is by works. This is not just the Mosaic law; it is legalism. And Paul refused to allow it.
Even though Paul’s opposition to the Judaizers in the early church effectively stopped the entrance into Christianity of the Jewish legalism (see the Letter to the Galatians), this did not stop another form of the legalism from creeping into Christian thought and practice some 200 years later. In this later form of legalism the rationalism of the Greek philosophers had been wedded to the legal philosophy of the Romans developed by such early writers as Cicero (1st century B.C.). This rationalistic legalism crept into Christian theology by way of a 3rd century lawyer and Christian apologist, Tertullian, and since the time of Augustine (5th century) has formed the basis of most Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.
FOUR DISTORTIONS OF THE LAW
Legalism in its fullest form consists of four distortions of the law. These are the essential characteristics of legalism.
1. The first distortion of the law is the absolutizing of the law. This consists of making the law into ultimate reality. This may be done either by making the law stand by itself apart from and above God or by identifying God with the law.
a. In the former God is seen only as a Lawgiver and Judge who gives and enforces the law that exists apart from Himself but who is ultimately subject to it. The law therefore is something eternal which rules the whole universe by commands and prohibitions; it is the primal and bedrock foundation of the moral universe. This form of absolutizing the law may be found in some forms of Judaism and in some Greek and Roman philosophy (Stoics).
b. According to the latter form, the law is the eternal and essential nature of God (“God is a God of law” or “God is law” or “the law is the essential nature of God”). The mind and will of God expresses this ultimate nature of God. Before the law was given and written down, it existed in the mind and nature of God. [1] God, accordingly, is defined as an infinite, moral, rational being. This form of absolutizing the law is found in some Christian theologies.
In both these forms of absolutizing the law, the law is ultimate and supreme. Individually and personally, absolutizing the law means that the law is made into one’s ultimate criterion of decision; it becomes the object of trust and ultimate confidence (Rom. 2:17). Thus to absolutize the law is to make it into God. Legalism is, therefore, basically an idolatry of the law.
2. The second distortion of the law is the depersonalizing of the law. This consists of making the law into a thing that is over man and between God and man. No longer is the law just a clarification of man’s relationship to God, providing guidance of man’s actions in relationship to God and to his fellow man (Torah — teaching); no longer is it the terms of a covenant that God made with the children of Israel, expressing God’s will toward them (in His grace and wrath) and for them (in their response to God). According to this distortion, the law now stands between God and man as a mediator, separating man from God. Instead of a face to face personal relationship to God, the relationship between man and God is depersonalized into a relationship to the law. God’s relationship to man is understood only in terms of the law. God is seen only as a Lawgiver and Judge. God is not a God of love. And if God’s love is recognized at all, it is subordinated to God’s justice and reduced to an emotion. Little place at all is left for God’s mercy and grace. God’s wrath is depersonalized into the effect of the eternal law of divine retribution. God is impelled by the demands of His own nature to punish sin; God’s wrath is caused by the immutable and necessary law of moral retribution (justice) which is God’s essential nature. There is little if any place for mercy in the exercise of God’s wrath. God deals with man strictly on the basis of law which demands that every sin be always and exactly punished and righteous works be rewarded.
This misunderstanding of God in terms of the law leads not only to a misunderstanding of the relationship of God to man but also of the relationship of man to God. Sin is defined in terms of the law and not in terms of God; sin is understood only as a falling short of the divine standard of the law, the breaking of the law or rules, the transgression of or want of conformity to the law in thought, word and deed. Sin is a crime and the penalty for these crimes is spiritual, physical and eternal death. Until the penalty is executed at the last judgement, man is under the burden of an objective guilt or condemnation which must be satisfied by the execution of the penalty. This objective guilt has been conceived in terms of a debt which man owes and/or as a demerit on man’s record.
Righteousness, correspondingly, is also misunderstood to be keeping of the law or rules, a conformity to the law in thought, word, and deed; legal and moral perfection. Man’s highest good and final goal according this point of view is this moral perfection, this legal righteousness. To stand spotless and without legal blame before the law is thought to be man’s ultimate hope. Man is misunderstood as being created under the law and for the law; he is a moral, rational animal. Accordingly, man is different from the lower animals and like God because he possesses a moral and rational nature like God does. There is within man’s conscience an absolute standard of right and wrong — the law of nature, a universal moral law. This misunderstanding of man in terms of the law follows from the misunderstanding of God in terms of the law. As a result, the relationship between God and man is depersonalized. The depersonalization of the law thus necessarily follows from the absolutizing of the law.
3. The third distortion of the law is the quantification of the law. This consists of attaching to the law’s commands and prohibitions various quantities of merit and demerit. Each good act is considered as having a certain quantity of merit or worth attached to its performance, while similarly each evil act incurs a certain quantity of demerit or unworthiness. The performance of each command of the law earns the associated quantity of merit, and each prohibition the quantity of demerit. So in the course of his life a man acquires merit by his good works or demerit by his bad works (sins — transgressions of the law). At the final judgment these will be weighed in the double pan balance of justice. And to each man justice will render impartially that which is due to him. If the merit outweighs the demerit, the man is legally declared righteous and legally entitled to eternal life and blessedness (he has earned it and justice demands that he receive it). On the other hand, if the demerits predominate, he justly deserves and receives eternal death, punishment, pain and suffering. Such an arrangement is called the merit scheme.
Jesus opposed this distortion of the law in His parable of the householder (Matt. 20:1-16). The Apostle Paul also rejected this distortion when he opposed salvation by works. He refers to such meritorious works as “the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 10:5; Phil. 3:6, 9) and “the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20; 4:2-5; Gal. 3:2, 5, 10). In his language a “work of law” was usually more than just a good deed or act; it was a meritorious good deed or act. The law was considered to be the standard by which the merits of good works can be determined. For James, on the other hand, a “work” was just a good deed or act (James 2:14-26). Since the Apostle Paul was talking about something different from James, they do not contradict each other when they speak of justification by works.
4. The fourth distortion of the law is the externalization of the law. This consists of making the law regulate the outward acts and conduct rather than the inner decisions and orientation of the will. Jesus specifically opposed this distortion of the law in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-48) and elsewhere (Matt. 12:9-14). This distortion results from the quantification of the law. In order for a person to be able to know the amount of merit or demerit of each act, the law is considered to regulate only the outward act or conduct. This distortion often leads to extensions of the law by the addition of many minute detailed regulations of conduct in order to be able to assign the correct amount of merit or demerit. These extensions of the law resulting from the externalization of the law are condemned by Jesus in His criticism of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:16-26). Legalism is not concerned with love and mercy except as a law that must be obeyed and kept. Love of God and love for one’s fellow man are only laws that must be observed and rules that must not be broken, an absolute standard that one must strive to come up to.
Legalism in absolutizing the law has distorted the meaning and the place of the law in God’s dealings with man. The law in its proper place in God’s dealings with man must be carefully distinguished from the distortion of the law that results from the legalistic absolutizing of the law. The failure to make this distinction between the proper understanding of the law and the legalistic misunderstanding of the law has led to much confusion in the discussion about the relationship of the law to the gospel. The distinction between the law and the gospel is not the same as the distinction between legalism and the gospel. The distinction between the law and the gospel is the distinction between the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. Whereas the distinction between legalism and the gospel is the distinction between salvation by meritorious works and salvation by grace though faith. The law as the old Mosaic covenant is not legalism and does not contain any of the legalistic distortions of law discussed above.
Legalism involves not only a misunderstanding of God and of the law but also of man and his relationship to God. According to legalism all men are under law and man’s relationship ot God is determined by the law; this relationship is essentually a legal one. Sin is understood to be the breaking of the rules, the transgression of the law in thought, word and deed. And righteousness is understood to be keeping the rules, a conformity to the law in thought, word and deed, moral perfection. Since man was created under the law and for the law, man’s highest good and final goal is this moral perfection, this legal righteousness. To stand spotless and without blame before the law is the legalist ultimate hope. The moral and ethical results of this conception of man is the moral dilemma; the contradiction between what man is and what he ought to be. Since man always falls short of this ideal of moral perfection, he is faced with the disparity between the real and the ideal, between what he is and what he ought to be. This dilemma of the legalist is given classic expression by the Apostle Paul in his famous analysis of the experience of the man under law in Romans chapter 7: “The good that I would, I do not. And the evil which I would not, that I do.” (Rom. 7:19) This predicament leads the legalist, as the Apostle Paul makes clear (Rom. 7:17-18) to conclude that sin is intrinsic to human nature. Rabinic Judaism developed the theory of the evil nature “yetzer hara.” Augustine introduced the doctrine of original sin (originale peccatum) or inherited inborn sinfulness into Western Christian theology to account for why man always fall short of the divine standard and cannot save himself by his meritorious works.
Sometimes it is argued that if the doctrine of the sinful nature is rejected, then how can salvation by works be logically opposed and rejected? If man does not have a sinful nature, then won’t he be able to save himself by his good works? Won’t he be able to earn his salvation by his meritorious works? Thus it is argued that the doctrine of the sinful nature must be accepted if salvation by works is to be rejected. Since the Scriptures clearly teaches that salvation is not by works but by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; etc.), then, it is argued, the doctrine of the sinful nature must be accepted in order to oppose and reject salvation by works.
Now the curious thing about this line of reasoning is that it assumes that if man is to be saved, he will be saved by works. That is, it assumes that if man were able to do good works, then he could save himself by his good works. But that is not true. Man can not save himself, even if he was able to do the good works to earn it. Salvation is not earned; it is a gift (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Whether man is able to do good works or not has nothing to do with salvation since salvation is not something which can be earned with good works. The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius is beside the point; their disagreement over whether man is free to sin or not, free to do good works or not, has nothing to do with whether salvation is by works or not. It was because they both assumed that salvation was by works that their disagreement over man’s free will had any point to it. And the doctrine of original sin and the sinful nature is also not necessary in order to reject salvation by works. It was only because Augustine made the legalistic assumption that salvation was something to be earned by works that he brought in the doctrine of the sinful nature to deny that man was able to save himself. Under the skin, Augustine was as much a legalist as Pelagius who explicitly taught that man could be saved by his meritorious works.
A legalistic Christian theology requires the doctrine of an inherited sinful nature. It says that if man did not have an inherited sinful nature, he would be able to do good works and then he could save himself by his meritorious good works. Thus it must teach that man must have an inherited sinful nature otherwise he could save himself. But this is not why man cannot not save himself. Man cannot save himself because he is dead and he cannot make himself alive, not because he is not able to do meritorious works. A legalistic Christian theology does not understand this. As long as Christian theology thinks of salvation legalistically as something earned by merits, it will need the doctrine of original sin to explain why man cannot save himself.
But this doctrinal expedient is unnecessary since the legalistic dilemma can be explained by the fact that a false god always betrays its worshiper into the opposite of what he expects (Isa. 44:9-10; 45: 16-17, 20-21). The legalist who deifies the law and looks to it to save him from sin and give him life, finds that the law cannot save him but on the contrary discovers that the law arouses sin and becomes the opportunity for sin which results in death (Rom. 7:5, 8-11). Besides the resulting misunderstanding of God and man, legalism has either of two psychological effects on the legalist. He becomes either self-righteous or afflicted with a guilt complex.
1. This self-righteousness is a special form of pride which is the chief by-product of idolatry (Psa. 40:4). It is mostly connected with the externalization and detailed extension of the law. It often creates the attitude of a Pharisee who keeps the minutiae but overlooks the spirit of the law. Also the legalist is not only self-righteous but sits in judgment on others and has little place for mercy. He becomes like the god he worships and acknowledges, the law.
2. If the legalist does not become self-righteous, he becomes afflicted with a guilt complex. This psychological effect is connected with the quantitization of the law. Since he cannot know the precise amount of merit attached to each good deed or how much he has acquired, a legalist has no certainty. In addition, no matter how well he has lived, it is always possible for him to slip into some terrible sin whose demerit will outweigh all his merit. As a result of this uncertainty, the legalist is led to look constantly within himself to see whether he measures up to the standard of the law which he has choosen as his ultimate criterion. If he believes himself constantly falling short of this standard, he will develop a guilt complex.
God’s wrath is directed against the idolatry of the law, legalism, as against any other idolatry. But the wrath of God is doubly directed against legalism because in addition to the wrath of God being against idolatry in any form (Rom. 1:18-25; 2:8), the failure to do the law in spite of having and trusting in the law brings the wrath of God (Gal. 3:10; James 4:17). Legalism cannot remove the wrath of God but causes wrath (Gal. 3:10; note that the “works of the law” are the meritorious works of legalism). Since the law cannot make alive ( Gal. 3:21) neither can legalism as an distortion of the law make alive. On the contrary, it causes death (Rom. 7:10). But since the law cannot make alive, legalism cannot produce righteousness either ( Gal. 3:21); it cannot take away sin. Likewise legalism cannot produce righteousness nor take away sin, but rather legalism causes sin (Rom. 7:5, 8, 11, 13). Thus legalism stands under a threefold Biblical indictment: it cannot remove wrath, sin or death because it cannot produce peace with God, righteousness or life.
There is no salvation by the law or by legalism.
ENDNOTES ON “LEGALISM”
[1] “I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men that Law is not a product of human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole universe by its wisdom in command and prohibition. Thus they have been accustomed to say that Law is the primal and ultimate mind of God, whose reason directs all things either by compulsion or restraint…. it is the reason and mind of the wise lawgiver applied to command and prohibition…. Ever since we were children, Quintus, we have learned to call, ‘If one summon another to court,’ and other rules of the same kind, laws. But we must come to the true understanding of the matter, which is as follows: this and other commands and prohibitions of nations have the power to summon to righteousness and away from wrongdoing; but this power is not merely older than the existence of the nations and states, it is coeval with that God who guards and rules heaven and earth. For the divine mind cannot exist without reason, and divine reason cannot but have this power to establish right and wrong…. For reason did exist, derived from the Nature of the universe, urging men to right conduct and diverting them from wrongdoing, and this reason did not first become Law when it was written down, but when it first came into existence; and it came into existence simultaneously with the divine mind. Wherefore, the true and primal Law, applied to command and prohibition, is the right reason of supreme Jupiter.”
Cicero, Laws, II, 8-10, Cicero,
De Re Publica, De Legibus,
Eng. trans. by Clinton Walker Keyes, in
The Loeb Classical Library,
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961), pp. 379-383.