ANSWERING OBJECTIONS
It would be both unfair and unwise to pretend that there are no objections to the position advocated in this volume. The fact is that serious questions are raised, and many of these come from sincere students of the divine revelation. They love truth and are eager seekers after it. They do not want to be misled or diverted into a false path. Their questions deserve careful consideration and demand honest answers.
First, let us give attention to those passages of the apostolic letters which seem to indicate we are still under law. Paul clearly states, "By works of the law no flesh shall be justified in his [God's] sight" (Romans 3:20). He also declares that we are "not under the law, but under grace" (6:14). If the very letters Paul wrote constitute a written code, and compose part of the framework of a legalistic system, it is obvious that we are still under law. The apostle then contradicts himself.
It will help us to keep in mind that the word "law" covers a wide spectrum of thought. The term itself is from an Old English form that refers to something laid or fixed, without reference to the source of the action. Our modern word "lay" is directly related to it, and we still use the expression, "lay down the law," when we speak of someone disclosing his wishes in an authoritative fashion.
In the New Covenant Scriptures the Greek word is nomos, and this refers to any rule of action, including that which motivates or impels one to engage in certain actions. Perhaps the term "controlling principle" sums up the wide scope of meanings. In this sense all are under law as the natural consequence of being rational, or having the power to reason. Paul affirms, "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16; RSV).
In this same connection he asserts, "So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law" (vv. 26, 27; RSV). A clear distinction is thus made between the written code and the principles of conduct observed as a natural result of our status as human beings, which provides us with both the power to think and the restraint of conscience. Every sane person acts through motivation or impulse, and the principles governing his action can be properly called law. It is obvious that those who have crucified the old man of sin and who are made partakers of the divine nature will act as directed and motivated by that nature, being a part of "the new humanity."
The question that concerns us is whether or not under the benign dominion of grace we are still under a legalistic system. Do the New Covenant Scriptures constitute a written code in the sense that the writings of Moses constituted such a code? Are we justified by conformity to a written code? Is grace simply the substitution of a new written code of laws for another that was declared invalid? This is precisely what a great many people think, and it is the reason why every use of the word "law" is interpreted by them to indicate that we are still under a legalistic system.
A good case in point is found in Romans 3:27, where Paul speaks of "the law of faith." Simple attention to the context should demonstrate that the apostle is not referring to a written code. Certainly the collection of New Covenant Scriptures cannot possibly constitute "the law of faith" of which he speaks.
Paul affirms that the righteousness of God to which the law and the prophets testified is now seen to be achieved without the law, and this is through faith in Jesus Christ (vv. 21-23). Upon this basis it is available to all who believe in Him, and there is no difference or distinction, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Paul further makes it clear that justification is by grace, which is a gift, freely given through the wonderful redemption in Christ Jesus. No longer does man identify with law in a vain hope of attaining righteousness, but with Christ Jesus who is our righteousness.
Paul anticipates the question, "Where is boasting then?" (v. 27). The answer is that it is excluded. It is obvious that if one attained to righteousness by his own efforts, through proper understanding and implementation of all the demands of law, he would have grounds to boast of his accomplishment. On the other hand, if righteousness is a gift based wholly upon what another has done for him, and which he could not do for himself, he has no reason for pride or boasting. The apostle writes, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith" (v. 27; KJV).
It is regrettable that the King James Version has the rendering "law," since the apostle is dealing with the principle of justification. There are but two conceivable bases upon which justification can be predicated. One is the perfect keeping of law, and the other is absolute trust in a perfect Redeemer. The first is impossible for men in the flesh, the second negates human pride and boasting. The Revised Standard Version is correct in rendering the passage, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith." The next verse states the conclusion, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."
Certainly the "law of faith," as the term is employed in the King James Version, has no relation to a written code. The Romans who received the letter never saw a copy of the New Covenant Scriptures. To postulate to them that they were to be justified by conformity to such a compilation of letters would have confused them as much as it does those in our generation who have inserted their own interpretation of Paul's words. The principle of faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ is one thing; the letters addressed to those who are in Him constitute a wholly different thing.
Romans 8 also causes concern for those who think of a written code every time they see the word "law." The apostle Paul writes, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (vv. 1, 2).
Those who equate "the law of sin and death" with the legalistic code given at Sinai tend to think of "the law of the Spirit of life" as being the New Covenant Scriptures. This is another example of reading into the Scriptures an opinion reflecting a postapostolic conclusion. The apostle stated in the previous chapter that we were freed from the demands of the law, having died to that which held us captive. Now we serve God, not under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit. One who is in Christ Jesus is freed from condemnation. There is no condemnation in Christ. He atoned for our sins on the cross, redeemed us from iniquity, and removed our guilt.
It is true that the Spirit inspired and empowered those who wrote the Scriptures, but it is not the Scriptures to which the apostle here alludes. He is saying that the principle of "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" has set us free and delivered us from the dominion of sin and death. Life in Christ is the natural order for the redeemed ones. The law of the Spirit is not a book but life in Christ Jesus. Those to whom Paul wrote were walking according to that law of the Spirit long before they received the letter he penned.
Properly understood, this explains the term "law of God" in the seventh verse, where Paul said, "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The carnal mind is the mind of the flesh, the rational part of man under the dominating principle of the corrupt nature. Such a mind is not merely apathetic to the will of God, but antagonistic and hostile. The alienation that results from the lower nature breeds enmity against God.
In 1 Corinthians 9:21 the apostle declares he is "not without law to God, but under the law of Christ" (KJV). Those persons who regard the New Covenant Scriptures as a written code project that idea into the expression, "under the law to Christ." This is the result of forgetting or ignoring the context of the passage and Paul's purpose of writing it.
In the preceding verses the apostle had outlined his reasons for not accepting financial support from the Corinthians, a right he abdicated rather than suffer under the accusation that he was proclaiming the gospel for personal gain. His complete adherence to the will of Christ made him free from any claim men might exercise over him. In spite of the fact that he was free from all men, he made himself a slave to all, adapting and accommodating himself to others, so that he might influence them to come to Christ.
"To them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (v. 20). This refers to the law given by Moses. When Paul labored among those who were scrupulous in keeping the law, he did not offend them by deliberately flaunting its provisions. He moved within its regulations. Once, while in Jerusalem, he acted upon the counsel of James to prove that he personally lived in observance of the law (Acts 21:24). When among Jews, Paul lived as a Jewish national; when among those under the law, he conducted himself as one subservient to the demands of the law.
"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (v. 21). The term anomos, which would be properly rendered "lawless," does not apply to the conduct or character of the people. It refers to the fact that no law had been given them or enacted for them. There is a difference in being without law and being an outlaw. It is a tribute to the versatility and flexibility of Paul that he could fit into the daily life of non-Jews.
The apostle did not want the Corinthians to think that he was antinomian, that is, opposed to rules of life and conduct. He was not a scofflaw. Even while living among those who had not received oracles from God, he recognized the sovereignty of God over every facet of life. He acknowledged also the fact that all authority had been given to Christ. In fact, Christ was Paul's law, the life of Jesus being his example and pattern. None of this argues that the new covenant is another legal code or that the New Covenant Scriptures constitute a legal document rather than a disclosure of the nature of grace.
Perhaps one of the most interesting studies in this regard is the letter of James, addressed directly "To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (James 1:1; RSV). That these were Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah is quite clear from James 2:1, 2. The word "assembly" is from sunagoge rather than from ekklesia. James speaks to them of the "perfect law" (1:25), the "royal law" (2:8), and the "law of liberty" (1:25). That all of these expressions refer to the same thing is at once apparent to the careful reader.
James begins in 1:22 with the solemn admonition that men must be doers of what is enjoined by the Word of God, and not mere hearers. Hearers of the Word only serve to deceive themselves. They listen but do not learn. In common parlance they allow what they hear to "go into one ear and out of the other." The writer declares that such a person is like a man who looks into a mirror and immediately forgets what he was like. Such a man would not remove marks or blemishes from his countenance, because he has forgotten about them.
This is followed by a contrast, quoted from the Revised Standard Version, because this reading seems to best grasp the meaning of the original: "But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing" (v. 25). What is the "perfect law"? It could not be the completed New Covenant Scriptures, of which the letter by James is a part, because there was no such compilation at the time. It is probable that the addressees of "the Dispersion" never saw another apostolic letter. Some of them, scattered as exiles throughout Asia Minor, may have read the letter designated "the First Epistle of Peter."
The "perfect law" is not a designation for the completed canon of the New Covenant Scriptures. Those who received the letter from James would have been in their graves many years before there was such a collection of apostolic documents. The word "perfect" is applied to "the law of liberty" because of its origin. It is from God and was personified in Christ. It was personal rather than preceptual, providing a Savior rather than statutes. The perfect law was embodied in a Man rather than inscribed in a manual. It was the life of Christ rather than a list of codes. Christ Jesus has left us an example that we should follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:21). The perfect law is from the mind of a perfect God, and was lived out before us in a sinless life.
The "law of liberty" is also perfect because of its nature. It is the law of love, and this love is the very essence of God. God is love. Every commandment is summed up in love, so that the one who truly loves fulfills every demand for which law was intended. Love validates every gift and sanctifies every sacrifice. Without love the most gifted individual is nothing, and without love the supreme sacrifice is of no profit. Love is the highest attainment to which man can ascend. "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us" (1 John 4:12; KJV). In Christ love is life, and life is love.
That James had this in mind is evident from what he says in dealing with the problem of showing partiality toward those who are rich and influential. He describes the universal obligation of love as "the royal law," the king of all laws (James 2:8). This is the law from which all others derive their meaning and toward which all others are subservient. "If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors" (2:8, 9; RSV). Love for any neighbor precludes the showing of partiality. Partiality violates the fundamental law of social well-being as manifested in the life of Jesus.
There is another thing about the word "perfect" we should not overlook. It is a translation of teleios, a word meaning "completion" or "perfection." In most cases it refers to perfection for a purpose or definite end. It was used for the attainment of the goal by a runner and his reception of the honorary wreath. It was used in the scholastic realm for one who had finished his course in the academy. Thus, James wrote a law combining all of the moral and ethical values Jesus taught and exemplified, and which were designed to make a man all that God intended for him to be.
No legal code can ever accomplish this. For man there must be an ideal so majestic that it will challenge him to transcend the fleshly and carnal life. As man identifies with that ideal he rises above the temptations that beset him and he becomes more than a conqueror. The revelation of God is a mirror reflecting the face and person of Jesus, making our shortcomings manifest by contrast.
The perfect law is one of liberty. This is interesting because law is a restraining and restricting force by its very nature. But the law of Christ, the governing principles of the Christ-life, frees one from debtorship to the flesh, from the slavery of passion and inordinate desire. It frees him to become his best as a son of God. But there is more to it than that, as will be seen by a study of the use of the same expression in James 2:8-13.
We must never forget that James was writing to Jews, who were familiar with the law as given by Moses. History portrays James himself as one who rigorously kept the law. The first part of the second chapter of his letter deals with the tendency to show preference toward the rich and affluent who visited the assembly of the saints. Such a practice might well be justified by a Jew who would say, "We were simply doing what the law enjoins in showing special consideration, for we were told to love our neighbor as ourselves."
To this James replies, "If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well" (2:8). If that were the only motivation for showing politeness to visitors, there would be no distinction in the treatment of the rich and poor; but showing partiality is not obeying the law of God. It is a sin, and the one convicted of it is a transgressor. Remember that the Jews to whom James wrote had no New Testament Scriptures. When James talked about the "royal law according to the scriptures," he was quoting Leviticus 19:18.
To justify one's action by quoting one statement from the law while ignoring the remainder of it is to be guilty of inconsistency. The Jews had enumerated 613 commandments in the law. It was not conceivable to them that one could obey all of them. As a result they had developed the casuistic philosophy that one could total the commands he had kept during a certain period, and subtract the total of the ones he had specifically violated. If the result showed a favorable balance, he could feel justified. The rabbis taught that if one observed a command of the law, good was credited to him. His life would be prolonged and he would prosper in his inheritance. James insisted that what counts is one's attitude to the whole law, not the observance of an isolated commandment, which can then be quoted to gain credit.
The follower of Jesus is not under any written code enforced with police power or judicial authority. Therefore, writes James, "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty" (2:12:RSV). We are not under statutory specifications, but in a spiritual relationship. We are to govern our speech and actions by the law of liberty, and this principle of behavior makes it possible for us to show mercy. Mercy is not required by one who lives perfectly, but by one who does not. It is the kind and compassionate treatment shown to an offender.
Law, as such, is interested in justice, not mercy. There is no justice in absolute mercy, and no mercy in absolute justice. One dies without mercy under the testimony of credible witnesses, when he is under a written code of authority. We operate under a law of liberty, and this provides for kindness or compassion. The one who shows no mercy will receive none. Our English word "mercy" is from the Latin mercedis, meaning payment, or reward. It refers to the heavenly reward to be given to the compassionate.
None of us will attain to glory except by the mercy of God. We simply cannot be saved upon the basis of our own righteousness. God will use the yardstick by which we measure others as the criterion for measuring us. If we show no mercy we will receive none. If we receive none we will be lost. The principle of liberty in Christ Jesus makes it possible for us to be compassionate. It distinguishes between love of law and the law of love.