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;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.
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).
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.
[1] C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
(London: Fontana Books, 1960), pp. 49-50.
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"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.
(Rom. 4:15b ERS).
"For until the law sin was in the world;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."
but sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom. 5:13 ERS).
"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 thingsThus 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.
that are written in the book of the law, to do them"
(Gal. 3:10 ERS; see also Deut. 27:26; 29:27).
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,This is the order of grace; obey because you are already blessed.
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)
"15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil.This is the order of law. Obey in order to be blessed.
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)
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]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).
should come to whom the promise had been made." (cf. Rom. 5:20)
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,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 the doers of the law shall be justified." (Rom. 2:13 ERS).
"But this is the covenant which I will makeBut in the preceding verse 14 (Rom. 2:14), Paul specifically says that the Gentiles do not have the law.
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)
"14 For when Gentiles, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law,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.
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)
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 andThis makes good sense if the Stoic teaching concerning the law of nature in the conscience is not read into the context.]
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)
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 dayBut 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 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)
"Is the law then against the promise of God? Certainly not;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).
for if a law had been given which could make alive,
then righteousness would indeed be by the law."
(Gal. 3:21)
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.
[1] W. Gutbrod, "anomia", in
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
ed. Gerhard Kittel, translator, Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), Vol. IV, p. 1086.
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.
Legalism in its fullest form consists of four distortions of the law.
These are the essential characteristics of legalism.
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.
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.
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] "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.