#55. Romans 7:7 - A Mini Education on the Law: Its Penalty (Conciliation Series, Part XXXII)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

What, then, shall we declare? That the law is sin?

In the previous article, I broke down law in its various forms, and concluded with the simple fact that God came first, followed by the law. He is not subject to it, but it displays His righteous nature. It comprises an aspect of God, but it is not His sum whole.

It follows: if this displays His nature, then why is it called “law?” Why not call it, “A list of righteous components,” or “The Right Way,” or… or “God’s nature”?

Simply: law has penalty.

Without this penalty, the multipurpose function of law, not only to display righteousness, but to recognize sin, and to stir up sin in the unrighteous (all, Rom. 3:10-11,) could not be fulfilled. Righteousness, by definition, fills a moral duty, as it shows a righteousness. If law denotes a Lawgiver, and law denotes authority, then it follows, obviously, that the Lawgiver is righteous (as only One Who is truly righteous can write something like The Torah.) However, authority – righteous authority, in particular, requires that you notice it.

I could tell you, “Hey! Go to the store and get me bananas!” But I’m not a king (at least, that’s what they tell me.) Thus, you don’t have to listen to me. What should you care that I gave you a direct order? You could go to the store and get yogurt, go party with your friends, flip me the bird, or stand on one foot and recite the alphabet backwards. Up to you, guy. I’m simply not an authoritative figure.

God, on the other hand, holds more weight when He gives a direct order. He’s not a gentleman; He’s a King. He does have authority, and He has to make it known.

Why does He have to make it known? Well, did you read what happened in the garden of Eden? Eve initially recognized God’s authority, but she didn’t respect it. As we’ve already discussed, she changed His word, presumed a nonsensical punishment, and limited his graciousness. In that, she actively turned around and listened to another figure, being the serpent. This means that the authority figure she was listening to was subsequently ignored in favor of another.

Thus, in presenting the law, as opposed to ‘a list of just prerequisites that define Him,’ God makes His authority known to mankind, and the celestial deities that exist. We already recognize that He enforced the structural laws of physics, and the moral nature of the universe. Both of these display His power, but not His authority.

Thus, you need a penalty.

In comes Mosaic law. Here, the penalty is presented, and it must be inflicted. There were various different penalties for breaking laws in Mosaic fashion. A few examples:

1)    Death (Deut. 19:21)

2)    Beating (Deut. 19:18)

3)    Death (Lev. 24:11-16)

4)    Payment (Deut. 19:19, 29)

5)    Death (Ex. 21:12-14)

6)    Death (Ex. 31:14-15)

7)    Also Death (Ex. 21:17)

There’s… not much nuance to the law’s penalties.                                                     The natural inference of man, when they realize that God is purposefully causing death in their life, or employing a penalty for their deeds, presume that He is “out to get them.” It’s some personal thing, to them, as though God has nothing better to do than torture His established creation – that He says He loves, mind you. What a rotten trick death must be!

The truth, thankfully, is far more enlightening. We dealt with the “curse” side of death – that it is an inherent trait that is corrupting every man to death, thanks to sin’s entrance into the human psyche through Adam. But the law’s death is not the ‘curse,’ but enforced by penalty. This, by definition, means that the punishment is not ‘personal,’ but is to display the effect of not following the law, i.e. unrighteousness.

This means that the inability to follow law is a display that God is hosting – the penalty must be enforced, which means it’s not designed to ‘reform’ or ‘change’ you for the better. Paul has not so much as implied that you were supposed to grow under law; in fact, he stated the opposite, that the offense increased under law. If it were designed to somehow ‘reform’ you, God would not be able to inflict a punishment if the sinner were truly sorry about what they did, because breaking the law would have already caused the sinner to want to change. Moreover, the law would no longer be the frame of reference by which a penalty is inflicted, but now it would be based on how much groveling the person does. As not one of the penalties say “If mankind apologizes, the penalty is passed over,” it follows that righteousness requires penalty, and it’s not based on man’s account, but the law itself.

We must also realize that the law’s penalty is not inflicted with an air of pompous assholery (that’s what I like to call it, anyway.) God isn’t setting an example as to ‘why you should follow His law’ in inflicting a penalty. This is another one of those logical fallacies than man assumes. He didn’t say, “Now you see! Hahaha! You do this, you die! Good luck!” He’s not trying to ‘deter’ other people from sinning, because Paul couldn’t say Rom. 5:20 otherwise (and, indeed, it’s because this assumption is preemptively made that Paul’s statements, to them, must be twisted so badly.)

This can be further proven by the simple fact that we, in our creation of governments, have employed this tactic – this notion that, ‘if we lay down the law now, then other people won’t follow suite.’ This has not worked, and never has. When a father punishes a child with intent to deter their brother, the reality is that both children just become more deceptive. Politically speaking, it only causes uproar and books like 1984, not fervent respect or care for the status quo (examples: The French Revolution, The Revolutionary War, etc.) It would prove that the system has no heart, i.e. no real purpose, but a mindless machination. As we’ve studied God’s character so far, we’ve found that He’s pretty dang heartfelt, and this would not be His purpose.

Law’s penalty is not designed to ‘make you suffer,’ either – that falls under “pompous assholery” again. God didn’t wake up one morning with the intent to kill for pleasure. He explicitly states time and time again that it does not bring Him any sort of pleasure to kill, but that it has a purpose (Ecc. 1:11, 3:1-8.)

With all of that considered, it becomes clear that the law can only be educational, not personal. If it were personal, then we can clearly see by God’s character that He can (and, I believe, would) forgive, and move on. When someone personally wrongs you, you are able to forgive without inflicting that penalty. Thus, if the law were personal, and nothing we do is outside of God’s intention (Rom. 9:20,) then it would be wrong for God to inflict a penalty, because He wouldn’t be teaching, but torturing. Moreover, it would mean God could inflict or remit penalty whenever He felt like it, which doesn’t make much sense, as it neutralizes any morality – not just between us and God, but between each other.

Alas, everything has meaning, so if it’s personal, then nothing has meaning. As God is revealing Himself to us in Romans, we should consider what does make sense, not what doesn’t. The reality is that, as regular citizens, we don’t have a governmental authority, nor do we hold a divine authority. As such, we don’t have the authoritative power to inflict a penalty on another person, whereas a king, or the Supreme Deity, does. But this means that this authority requires a separation between a personal care and subjecting another.

Here’s a good example for you. Observe a longer passage here, being Dan. 6:6-16, concerning the formation of the law that caused Daniel to be thrown into the lion’s den–

Then these chancellors and satraps came thronging onto [King Darius,]saying this to him: O King Darius, live for the eons! All the chancellors of the kingdom, the prefects and satraps, the retinue and the viceroys have taken counsel together to set up a royal statute and to enforce an interdict that: anyone who shall utter a petition to any eloah or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be heaved into the den of the lions. Now, O king, may you set up the interdict and sign the writing so that it is not to be altered, as an edict of the Medes and Persians that cannot be abrogated. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict.

As soon as Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house. Now the windows were opened for him in his upper chamber toward Jerusalem. Thus at three stated times in the day, he was kneeling on his knees and praying and acclaiming before his Eloah, forasmuch as he had been doing it before this.

Then they responded and said before the king: That Daniel, who is of the sons of the deportation from Judah, does not act, O king, on your decree and on the interdict that you have signed; at three stated times in the day, he is uttering his petition before his eloah.

Then, when the king heard the matter, it was greatly displeasing to him. So toward Daniel he set his heart to deliver him; and until sunset he was exerting himself to rescue him.

Then these masters came thronging to the king and said to the king: Know, O king, that it is an edict of the Medes and Persians that any interdict or statute which the king should set up, is not to be altered. Then the king said the word, and they brought Daniel hither and heaved him into the den of the lions. The king was responding and saying to Daniel: Your Eloah, Whom you are serving in abidance, may He Himself deliver you!

You’re still here? Good. King Darius, in this scenario, had to set aside his personal fondness for Daniel because the law was being enforced. Do you see how this works? God loves all, but because the law was being enforced, He had to set aside His personal fondness for you. If you are still claiming to be under law, and then sometimes under grace (whenever it’s convenient for you,) then you are keeping yourself at odds with the personal relation to God, in favor of the religious.

When the law is given by the lawgiver, the law, by definition, must be enforced. God enforces these laws when we are under them (as faithfully as He enforces the laws of physics.) Now, His punishment, with all of this considered, must also be enforced, or the law cannot be respected. The starting point of wisdom is the fear of Yahweh (Prov. 9:10,) and the only way one can incite fear is by enforcement.

Because of the modernist world that we live in, this concept is very difficult to apprehend – not because of what it is, as though it’s difficult for us to understand, but because the concept, according to our perception, has only been utilized by men throughout our entire lives, so the only proper execution of this notion that we know of is in Scripture, as it’s the only execution that does not have an ill-will, or corruptible intention behind it. God is not an evil tyrant, so He is not going to cause you to fear Him solely to assert dominance. The goal here, after realizing His dominance, is to display His love for you. The law’s penalty, in being the natural consequence of being titled, “The Law,” reveals that the penalty, in not being personal, doesn’t sacrifice God’s heart of love, but shows His perfectionist nature to rule.

Hope that made sense! God inflicts penalty to display a principle, and teach us (Ecc. 1:13,) not to ruin us or cruelly toss us in hell. God is authoritative, and because He is such, we are obliged, by the nature of reality, to obey authority, or suffer its consequence. We’ve spent our lives surrounded by weak manmade governments, which have incited rebellious factions, stemming to more corrupt governments. In contrast, God’s authority remains, and has not been proven false, or unrighteous, by any man-made reasoning. The rebellion that is operating on the earth now will be cast aside, giving way to Christ’s righteous reign in the fourth eon, with the law as His government’s proper principle.

A logical thinker, as opposed to a rash rebellious soul, can go, “Oh, well, it makes sense that if a man, who is under the law as long as he is living, breaks God’s law, and then God doesn’t inflict the penalty of said law, then God is dishonoring the righteous law, making Him unjust.” This shows us, naturally, that God can’t just ‘not enforce’ a penalty, because, if the law is righteous (which it is,) then God, in being the Source of the law, must enforce it, as unrighteousness cannot magically beget righteousness (Rom. 3:10-11.) God and the law are inseparable, as God is perfect, His ways are flawless (Deut. 32:4,) and the law is holy and just and good (Rom. 7:12.)

- GerudoKing