Under the Law Question: 1/22/12
Q: I was looking for an explanation of the term "under the law" and read an excellent article on your website called "We are NOT Under the law" by Rich Traver.
His explanations of the various Greek words used for ‘under’ ‘within’ and ‘without’ the law were very helpful. However, I would like to ask him about his definition of the word ‘Hupo-nomos’ Strong's #5259. Hupo-nomos is translated ‘under the law’ and he says it means: ‘One who knows the law and doesn't keep it’
The only problem I have with that explanation is this: ‘But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born [or ‘made’] of a woman, born under the law (#5259)
Galatians 4:4I might be missing something here but Christ obviously does not fit the definition of ‘One who knows the law and doesn’t keep it’.
If he could clear this up for me I’d be very grateful.
Carol
A: This is a very interesting question and brings out important considerations.
As to the definition of hupo-nomos, that is drawn from Romans 3:19. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” This is hupo-nomos and it shows that it isn’t a matter of being “under” in the sense of the law being applicable or not applicable. For all the world to be “under the law”, and guilty, it must refer to the fact that the law is applicable to all peoples. So, being “under the law” is not a term referring to the law being not applicable. All of humanity is obligated to keep God’s Law, anytime, anywhere. Sin is the natural proclivity of all people. Since all have at some point broken the law, they are under the penalty (guilty) in God’s sight. (Romans 3:23) (1st John 3:4)
Now with that in mind, we are given pause to consider that Jesus Christ, is declared as having been born under the law. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Gal. 4:4) This could be construed as suggesting that Jesus was at some point guilty as are all other men of the kind into which He was born.
I will admit that the “We Are NOT Under the Law” article was simplified to make clearer a basic point. This question brings out another important nuance that’s also well within the realm of considera-tions. This matter is addressed under other titles, such as “What DO You Mean FREE?” In the quest for attainment of a righteous (sinless) state, there were two approaches: One was to attain the state of ‘Justification’ by ones’ own effort. In other words, attempting to keep God’s Law perfectly, an approach some refer to as a “legalistic approach”. This was the general orientation of those of Judaic persuasion. The other approach was to attain ‘Justification’ under and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, recognizing that no amount of perfect law-keeping could cause remissions of sins already committed. It was Paul’s opposition to this mistaken idea that has been misconstrued by modern religion to mean that we ought to not even attempt to keep God’s Laws. A leap over the edge into another sphere of misunderstandings. Paul’s seeming negative regard for “the Law” is always in the context of it being the perceived means of remission of sins: The important difference between attaining Justification BY the Law, as opposed to becoming a ‘law-keeper’ as the appropriate response to having been forgiven. Modern religion fails to comprehend this essential distinction.
It is this distinction that we need to recognize when considering Paul’s writings in places such as Galatians chapters 4 and 5. Let’s consider a couple of passages.
Gal. 4:19-23 “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,… Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.” To these who preferred to hold to the legalistic approach, he reminded them of two different sons of Abraham which represented two different states. The one born of a bondwoman was subject to the law by obligation. The other, the legitimate son, was subject to the law by choice. That point is further brought out as he continues in the next chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians.
Gal. 5;16-25 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (The Spirit won’t cause us to sin, but our physical pulls will.) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” This insightful narrative considers the approach of adhering to the legalistic system as an intended means of attaining ‘Justification’ and thus Salvation by their own (corrupt) physical effort. The contrast between Hagar and Sarah reminds them that there were two ‘mothers’ who brought Abraham’s seed into the world: Hagar who was legally obligated to obey by being bound to her masters, versus Sarah who obeyed her husband by choice. That Sarah-born heritage was the legitimate heir. The important consideration here was that legal compliance was not the means of obtaining salvation, but is the result of it. BOTH women effectively did the same thing, they obeyed, but one did so by obligation, the other by choice. (1st Peter 3:6 shows that Sarah obeyed by her own choice, it wasn’t that Abraham forced her to do it.)
So when considering the point of Christ being ‘made under the law’, (by birth) it’s not suggesting He broke the Law. Rather, He was born into a life-form that naturally is unavoidably sinful. Being born of that kind of beings was essential for Him to be able to pay the penalty for these others BY the shedding of His own blood! As a Spirit being, He could not effect “Justification” in mankind. Jesus was born into that genre which we read of in Psalms 51:3-5. “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” People with a negative regard for human sexuality attempt to suggest David meant that the act of procreation was that sin. David’s real point was that he was born of a kind of being that was subject to sinfulness from his core inception. Just by nature of his inherited nature, the nature of Adam. Paul re-enforces the thought in 1st Corinthians 15. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Just being born into the Adamic kind, born of the flesh, we are subject to death, the consequence of our inherited sinful natures.
Verses 45 to 50 continue the subject: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. ... The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The physical man, in his natural born state, even though he as an infant hasn’t yet sinned (one must attain a level of maturity to be able to make conscious choices in order to accrue guilt) he must take on the nature of Christ to become truly righteous. In the same vein as the original question, we’re drawn to the statement that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’. If we are to consider the other statement, of His being ‘born under the law’, as a suggestion that He was at some point, in some way, “guilty”, then considering this other pronouncement could pose a similar conclusion. Being flesh and blood, He could not inherit the Kingdom of God! Obviously, a step too far!
No, it wasn’t a suggestion of guilt, rather simply, that He was born into that kind of being who is naturally unrighteous by reason of a sinful nature. Christ was clearly an exception to that as we read of in places like 1st Peter 1:19-23 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, … Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” And Hebrews 4:14-15, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
Hupo-nomos, in application to sinful humanity, is certainly indicative of the condition of “under the Law” being in an ongoing state of Guilt! In application to Christ, an obvious exception must be made.
The nuance referred to above is that distinction between the definition of the term ‘under the law’ as meaning ‘guilty’ and the approach some take of using the law as their means to the attainment of perfect righteousness. That too needs to be understood. Legalism, properly defined, is that approach that attempts to employ law-keeping as the means to salvation, which of course is not possible. Paul said so in so many places. (e.g. Romans 3:20) Now, that too is compatible with the definition, as their attempting to employ legal means to attain salvation, rather than accepting Christ’s free gift, leaves them still in a Guilty state.
One other point we can draw from this is a reaffirmation of the definition stated above. IF “under the law” IS a matter of guilt rather than of applicability, as most religions attempt to make it be, we can see that it applies to ALL as all are born under the law. In other words, all are obligated to keep the law, not just Jews, not just “Old Covenant peoples! All are capable of sin, therefore the law must apply to all. All are born “under the law”(by nature of birth) and need to be brought out from under it. Christ being the sinless example is the pattern we are to imitate. In our “flesh and blood” state, we are not heirs of the Kingdom, but if “in the Spirit” we can be. RT
POSTNOTE: My apologies for not investigating this sooner, but I find that in an Englishman’s Greek Concordance, ( Zondervan 1971, pg. 517 ) there is a ‘footnote’ which indicates that the article ‘nomos’ is not found in the original Greek texts. Only ‘hupo’ appears in Galatians 4:4. It indicates that the English translators added “the law” where no Greek word for “the law” actually exists. However, this is the case in several places, and it is logically implied by the contexts. The Greek texts then indicate that Christ was ‘made under’, but ‘under’ what is inserted by conjecture on our part. That doesn’t change the above explanations. He was physically born into a sin-prone kind, having left His Divine Glory to do so. Hebrews 2:9 presents the picture clearly: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”