The Law of Love

The Holy Letter of The Law of God

(Part I).

Perhaps the most misunderstood and despised by the modern world, and especially by Christians, is the Law of God.

It is important for any society, civilization, or community to have a shared morality or common code of ethics. We believe that for Christians, especially for those who seek to live in a community with one another, that both the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient practice of Christian peoples everywhere for over a millennia, requires us to recognize the authority of God’s Holy and Most Perfect Law as that shared morality and common code of ethics for Christians living together.

It will be said here from the outset, that there is a great deal of theological understanding required to delve into the various types of laws and their place and purpose in Christian life, as the Advent of Christ brought with it the coming of the Kingdom and expiration of the Old Covenant with its sacrifices (Hebrews 7-9, 1 Corinthians 5:7, Galatians 5:1-4) and dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9-15), among just a few [1]; however, Christ Himself made clear, as a preamble to the Sermon on the Mount, as if anticipating that he would be misunderstood, that He did not come to abolish the Law, but that His work was to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Indeed, Christ clearly taught that those who set aside one dot or one iota of that Law will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:18-19). St. Paul likewise reaffirms the authority of this law when discussing the nature of homosexuality and the proliferation of sin as God’s judgment upon the nations and that such practices were “...worthy of death.” (Romans 1:32)

Hence, both in the precept and in the penalty of the moral law, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, we have clear testimony that such abides for God’s people.

Many Protestants have wrongly erred in thinking that, because Christians are indeed saved by God’s unmerited Grace made manifest through faith, that such faith, which is not of works, somehow nullifies the need to perform works of the Law. Against this error, St. Paul again is clear; “Do we abolish the Law by this faith? By no means! We Uphold the Law!” (Romans 3:31) [2]

The importance of the Law is that it reveals our sin and inadequacy to be “Holy as I am Holy,” (Leviticus 20:7-8) as the ability to love God fully and love our neighbor as ourselves is clearly impossible for us.

Thus, the law reveals that we are sinful and that we cannot please God.

Indeed, if we EVER, deny that we have sin in us, we are liars, as St. John likewise affirms:

“If we say we have no sin, we are liars and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

Indeed, as the law reveals that we are sinners and imperfect, it is tempting to blame and lash out against God’s Law as it exposed our imperfections, for we do things that we do not want to do, and we don’t do the things that we want to do.

“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.” (Romans 7:14-18)

But again, we must emphasize, the Law of God, no matter how it condemns us, is still authoritative for us as our moral standard.

Indeed, it is not simply a pattern of the ways in which we should walk, but is that standard by which we punish sin, whether in the Church or in society.

Indeed, there are certain crimes in the Old Testament which God declares are worthy of death; here are some of those which still directly apply today:

1. Murder (Ex 21:12,14)(Lev 24:17,21)(Num 35:16-21,30-31)
2. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16)(Deut 24:7)
3. Child sacrifice (Lev 20:2)
4. Adultery (Lev 20:10)(Deut 22:22-24)
5. Rape (Deut 22:25)
6. Idolatry (Ex 22:20)(Deut 17:2-5)(Num 25:1-5)
7. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14)(Ex 35:2)(Num 15:32-36)
8. A Woman Who Lied About Her Virginity to Her Husband (Deut 22:21-22)
9. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13)
10. A Man and His Father’s Wife Who Have Sex (Lev 20:11)
11. A Man and Daughter-in-law Who Have Sex (Lev 20:12)
12. A Man Who Marries a Woman and Her Mother (all 3 must die) (Lev 20:14)
13. Bestiality (Sex with an animal) (Ex 22:19)(Lev 20:15-16)
14. A False Prophet (Deut 13:5)(Deut 18:20)
15. A False Witness (Deut 19:16-21)
16. Rebellion Against Parents (Deut 21:18-21)
17. Grown Children Who Strike Their Parents (Ex 21:15)
18. Adult Child That Curses Their Parents (Ex 21:17)(Lev 20:9)
19. Abortion (Ex 21:22-25).
20. Unintentional Negligent Homicide (Ex 21:28-29)
21. Witchcraft (Ex 22:18) (Lev 20:27)
22. Teaching False Religion (Deut 13:6-11) (Deut 13:12-15)
23. Blasphemy (Lev 24:10-16,23)
27. Rebellion Against The Decision of The Church Court (Deut 17:8-12)

When these crimes are punished in the Old Testament, the entire congregation of God’s people were to be involved in the execution of the individual on the outside of the camp (Leviticus 24:24-16):

“The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 17:7)

Then when we get to the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 5, we see that this same phrase is used for the excommunication or shunning of a person who commits such actions (in this case, for one of the capital crimes mentioned above (namely, #10 or Leviticus 20:11):

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1Corinthians 5:11-13)

Christian communities should seek to use the Law of God as their code of Christian ethics in a general way, and so transgressions that are capital crimes under the Law of God are still regarded as worthy of death but since Christians do not the present authority to enforce such penalties, they should follow the practice of the apostolic church and purge the evil from their midst through the BAN as inspired by the Anabaptists; wherein, the person found guilty after following the procedure in Matthew 18:15-20 is cast out and exiled from their community and all contact and association is broken with them in the hope that they might repent and be restored.

Indeed, when we get to 2 Corinthians, we see that the man who had sinned in the example above was restored to God’s people.

“Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs. ” (2 Corinthians 2:5-11)

So too with a Christian community, those who have been purged from it, might be restored through a process of penance wherein they demonstrate true repentance through their actions and not merely their words alone.

This is the place of the Law of God, to protect God’s people from outward acts of evil which destroys communities and to direct sinners to redemption in Christ Jesus and be a pattern of holy living for the saints; however, the letter of the Law alone is not where we leave the matter.

The Spirit and Fulfillment of The Law in Love (Part II).

Saint Augustine’s work on the Sermon on the Mount is some of the best works on that text of Scripture ever written and was the base for countless other commentaries and works on that text to come; likewise, in his work On The Letter and The Spirit, St. Augustine teaches us that the Marcionite heresy which divided and opposed the Law of God against that of the Sermon on the Mount was false on several important points.

Firstly, God gave us this law and the lex taliones (eye for an eye) aspect of it so as to protect God’s people from sin, for they would take a life for an eye in their own state of depravity had it not been for God’s Law restraining men from taking their vengeance too far in disproportionate ways; indeed, this applies to the relations of everything under the Law in relation to the words of Christ whether it be violent revenge, capital punishment, debts, swearing oaths, etc. Note, this extended quote from Saint Augustine in his letter Against Faustus:

“Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said by them of old time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and what the Lord says, "But I say unto you, that you resist not evil; but if anyone smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on. The old precept as well as the new is intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make their enemy suffer enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not summon his assailant, that he may be condemned in the court of law? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can get hold of one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess, the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty should correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire already kindled from spreading. For there is a just revenge due to the injured person from his assailant; so that when we pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lord's prayer, we are taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our debts. There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is kindness in forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never swears; and while swearing truly is not a sin, we are further from sin by not swearing; so that the command not to swear is a guard against perjury: in the same way since it is sinful to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security against the sin of making an unjust demand is to demand nothing, especially considering the danger of being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is indebted to none. Thus, I would explain the passage as follows: It has been said by them of old time, You shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at all: here is the fulfillment. It is thus that Faustus, after quoting, "It has been said, You shall not swear falsely; but I say unto you, swear not at all," adds: here is the fulfillment. I might use the same expression if I thought that by the addition of these words Christ supplied a defect in the law, and not rather that the intention of the law to prevent unjust revenge is best secured by not taking revenge at all, in the same way as the intention to prevent perjury is best secured by not swearing at all. For if "an eye for an eye" is opposed to "If any one smite you on the cheek, turn to him the other also," is there not as much opposition between "You shall perform unto the Lord your oath," and "Swear not at all?" Matthew 5:33-34 If Faustus thinks that there is not destruction, but fulfillment, in the one case, he ought to think the same of the other. For if "Swear not" is the fulfillment of "Swear truly," why should not "Take no revenge" be the fulfillment of "Take revenge justly"? ……………There is in both cases a guard against sin, either of false swearing or of unjust revenge; though, as regards giving up the right to revenge, there is the additional consideration that, by forgiving such debts, we shall obtain the forgiveness of our debts. The old precept was required in the case of a self-willed people, to teach them not to be extravagant in their demands. Thus, when the rage eager for unrestrained vengeance, was subdued, there would be leisure for any one so disposed to consider the desirableness of having his own debt cancelled by the Lord, and so to be led by this consideration to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant.” (St. Augustine)

Thus, the Law protects man against sin by giving man a proportional means of retaliating against evil that is not evil in itself; however, what Christ is teaching us in the Sermon on the Mount is not a contradiction or change to God’s law. If Christ contradicted or changed the Law, then He could not be God in the Flesh, for there is no division in the Godhead and God is unchanging and the Law reflects His nature as Holy and Other. Likewise, Christ Himself says when he gives the Sermon on the Mount that heaven and earth will pass away before the authority of the Law passes away (Matthew 5:17-19).

So then, how can Christ tell us to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39)? How can he tell us to let a thief, or a swindler take advantage of us without recourse (Matthew 5:40-42)? St. Augustine explain the Scriptures well in this regard showing forth that if the Law is GOOD for preventing the evil sin of disproportionate retaliation, then it is BETTER to not to retaliate at all as to prevent that sin which is exactly what Christ is teaching us to do.

If we are to walk after the ways of God, Who sends rain and sun on the heads of the righteous and unrighteous (Matthew 5:45), then we are to love our enemies and those who sin against us (Luke 6:27-31).

Not only this, but Christ summarized well for us the whole of the Ten Commandments based on a text that was given in the Law itself (Deuteronomy 6:5cf Leviticus 19:18)! For Christ states clearly that if the people had rightly understood Moses then they would have listened to and obeyed His teachings (John 5:46).

“ And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

However, a person might say; “well I have obeyed all of the commandments since my youth!”

What does Christ say to the rich young ruler in this case?

“Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. (Matthew 19:21)”

Indeed, the Law of God and the Wisdom of Solomon made provision for men to store up in anticipation of the future (Proverbs), but Christ says that we are to trust in God for our provision:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. ” (Matthew 6:25-34)

But surely we aren’t communists are we?

C.S. Lewis states that:

“All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Everyone is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no ‘swank’ or ‘side’, no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist.

On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience—obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong.

Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the New Testament hates what it calls ‘busybodies’. If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned—perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: everyone is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.”(Mere Christianity Book III, Chapter 3)

Obviously, we are not communists, for we are not materialistic atheists who believe that the workers are to seize the means of productions by force and abolish all religion; indeed, the Lutheran Book of Concord rightly teaches that Christians have the right to own property and the Law of God assumes that property exists (thou shalt not steal). However, as the example of the Holy Apostles show forth and as we discussed regarding the Law, just as it is no sin to retaliate justly according to the Law, it is better not to retaliate at all, so too, it is morally acceptable to possess and rightly care for one’s property, but it is better to have no property at all if such might be used to the benefit of a community of believers.

Those who deny this must reckon with the example of the Apostolic church, the churches founded and led directly by those who were themselves directly taught by Christ did not hesitate in doing what anyone with a mind at all can plainly see from reading the New Testament. They got rid of their possessions, they gave all that they had and received according to they had need. It is amazing how many Christians I have heard quote the phrase “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need” and attributed that quote to that pig of a man Karl Marx! [3]That statement is from Holy Scripture! How far have Christians fallen in following the ideals of a political movement more than the text of Scripture and who have mistaken what we are permitted (property and possessions) for what we are to strive towards (common ownership).

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. ” (Acts 2:42-47).

“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things belonging to him was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles were giving forth their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone needy among them; for all who were owners of lands or houses were selling them, and were bringing the proceeds of the things which had been sold, and were placing them beside the feet of the apostles; and they were distributing to each, to the degree that anyone had need. And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a Cyprian by nation, who, possessing a field, sold it and brought the money and placed it beside the feet of the apostles.” (Acts 4:32-37)

It seems obvious that several aspects should be of encouragement to the Christian; namely, that none had need, all were happy and full of Grace, they were united in the bonds of fellowship, and the Lord was increasing their number. Why? Because this community expression found here in the Church of Jerusalem exemplified the ideal, as set forth by the Apostles, for how a Christian church was to be. The church was not to be a private club for meetings one hour every Sunday. No! the church is a monastic community made up of families and individuals.

Indeed, there is evidence that more than the Church in Jerusalem had distribution, for the Church of Ephesus had rolls for the distribution to Christian widows (1 Timothy 5:9-16), and the injunction to the church of Thessalonica to prohibit food to the one who refuses to work makes even more sense if the church was practicing common ownership and distribution (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Even St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom are quite clear on the ideal Christian disposition towards private property:

“This is not indeed according to nature, for nature has poured out all things for the common use of all. For God caused all things to be produced in such a way that there might be food common to all, and that the earth might serve as a kind of common possession for all. Nature, then, ushered in the right to things in common, usurpation created the right of private property.” (St. Ambrose)

“It is not for lack of miracles that the church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost and fallen back on private property. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all.” (St. John Chrysostom)[4]

Christians are not to seek wealth and riches (Matthew 6:19-21) (James 2:1-9), and this has become forgotten, for the average American and European is wealthy and has not looked upon what they themselves have, indeed in covetousness they have taken debts and become slaves for the sake of homes and cars and entertainment (Proverbs 22:7).

Christian communities should seek, as an ideal and ultimate goal, the opportunity to voluntarily give up their possessions or contribute them entirely for the benefit of their brethren in their church family. May God grant us the day where we may experience such an apostolic culture of charity and fellowship. Until then, may God grant us the wisdom to be good stewards of the property and possessions that He has given us.

-Joshua Johnson

Footnotes

[1] Not all ceremonial laws were eliminated in a sense, for both the holy anointing oil and the incense, which were patterned after Heavenly realities, are reintroduced and repurposed in the New Testament. Indeed, all ceremonial laws continue in the sense that their fulfillment is in Christ who rules and reigns even now. They continue inasmuch as the caterpillar continues in the butterfly. The form has changed, but the essence continues on.Not all ceremonial laws were eliminated in a sense, for both the holy anointing oil and the incense, which were patterned after Heavenly realities, are reintroduced and repurposed in the New Testament. Indeed, all ceremonial laws continue in the sense that their fulfillment is in Christ who rules and reigns even now. They continue inasmuch as the caterpillar continues in the butterfly. The form has changed, but the essence continues on.

[2] I do not want to be charged with painting Protestantism with a broad brush here, for there are many, especially in the Reformed tradition, who absolutely do not fall into this antinomian tendency. Indeed, the Christian Reconstructionist Movement (which I praise elsewhere as well) was absolutely right on Theonomy when it was expressed correctly; namely, that the judicial laws reapply inasmuch as they reflect the immutable moral law, but expire inasmuch as they were relative to that body-politic of ancient Israel (the Westminster Confession taught as much as well). Of course, later on, I will critique the expression of this view in men like Dr. Gary North as going too far is judaizing direction. Interestingly enough, all of Christian civilization deep into the post-enlightement era more or less enforced punishments against the same crimes and with the same severity as prescribed under Moses (even if not EXACT). Indeed, they do so sufficiently to be called “broadly theonomic” and this was the case for Catholic, Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox nations. Heresy was punished, sodomy was punished, adultery was punished, et al. and this was reflective of the universal Christian ethic for over a millennia.

[3]I AM NOT saying he never said this, but he did not invent the concept or the quote anymore that I invented the concept or quote “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

[4]Dr. Gary North, the Christian Reconstructionist, has stated in his work on the early Puritan economic experiments in Plymouth argues that they attempted “common-ownership” and nearly starved until they embraced private ownership and free enterprise, but how is it that the Celtic monastics were able to do this successfully for centuries? Or the Early church for that matter? No one says that private property and free enterprise cannot generate wealth, but that is not our goal or motive and perhaps their failures were more in line to the extreme New England climate as compared with the milder climate or England or Holland. I say this as a general fan of his work, for anarcho-capitalism (or minarchism) is worlds better than living under Stalin or Mao in terms of what would be best for Christians.