In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.
 |
| The Bible was not written in KJV English |
When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against?
I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?
If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law.
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?
This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.
As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?
My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.
How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?
Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.
Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.
KJV ONLY
In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one:
(I JON. 3: 4) [KJV] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.
But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.
hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]
Sin is lawlessness.
Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.
The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports.
The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.
With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.
In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.
SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND
I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.
This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.
(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.
(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.
Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?
If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.
But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.
To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]
I'm going with B!
ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION
Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.
What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.
Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.
Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑
When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:
(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.
(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.
LAWLESS AT HEART
(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!
So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.
But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.
We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?
So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.
In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith.
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.
John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.
(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?
CONCLUSION
Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture says sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”
Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. The obvious reading is misleading.
If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.
It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.
It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, but behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then us mere humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.
That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.
The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.
I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.
Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.
Here are some posts to help you move forward:
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God
This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
No comments:
Post a Comment