'The law is not for believers'- A critique of hyper-grace

In Andrew Farley's book on hyper-grace, he states quite clearly that the law is not for believers but for unbelievers (pp. 47-48 ref.1). Farley interprets 1 Timothy 1:8-11 as Paul saying that the law is for unbelievers, he also attempts to explain why he thinks that. Dr. Paul Ellis, who strongly endorses Andrew Farley's book 'the naked gospel', also suggests that the law is not for believers.

But firstly let's clarify. The argument is based on asking questions around if Christians need to keep the law, or, further, if Christians can benefit from reading or studying the law at all? The question is a valid one. It is engaged with in the New Testament a number of times and in different ways. In Acts, we see the church grappling with the law when gentiles start being included into the fold of true believers. The apostles give a short list of minimum requirements of the lifestyle of believing Greeks which includes avoiding food sacrificed to idols, abstinence from sexual immorality, and meat with the life blood still in it. So it is a valid question. But is the answer as valid?

Problem 1:

Paul writes 'the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers...' but what does this mean? Isn't it strange to say 'the law is for lawbreakers'? Think about it, if there was no law, there would be no lawbreakers. The law, as in our society, is a way to manage a country. If people are generally good on their own, the law is irrelevant, but when people do wrong, the law points it out and demands justice on the wrong and with laws, everyone knows where they stand-the law is for lawbreakers. The law is a management system, a way to manage and deal with law breakers, and help to put a lid on desiring to do wrong according to the law by making punishments clear.

Therefore, drawing the conclusion that the law is only for unbelievers from Paul is misleading and unjustified. It can only be done by jumping to conclusions, conclusions that you want to see. Paul doesn't make the distinction here between believers and non, he makes a distinction between the actions of the person, doing unlawful things, as opposed to acting righteously. He is not here talking about being righteous in Christ, but as he is discussing the law, he is addressing being righteous in action in relation to the law so while the text also says that the law is not for the righteous, that doesn't mean the law is only for unbelievers.

To support this, as is always so important with biblical interpretation, we need to look at the wider text. Farley has drawn this conclusion from 2-3 words from a larger piece of writing. In his interpretation Farley ignores much of the what else Paul writes.

Firstly, Paul states in verse 8 'We know that the law is good if one uses it properly' so the law, used properly can be for believers too. So Paul is not arguing against the law being only for non believers, but he is actually promoting using the law properly in the context of teaching believers. He was arguing that the false teachers were badly handling the teaching of the law to believers. He was not arguing that it shouldn't be taught, but rather, that it be taught properly and correctly.

Dr. Ellis' also argues that the law is for non believers, or the self-righteous, he states that

In answering the question of what is the law for, Dr. Paul Ellis states on his facebook page that:

'The law is for those who trust in themselves and their own righteousness rather than in Christ and his.' (ref 3. a.). He bases this on how Jesus uses the law to challenge self-righteous Pharisees.

This appears to be a wider description that Farley (and is discussed in more detail under 'Problem 6'). However, this description would include all non believers for sure, but it would also include anyone, even if they professed faith, but are self-righteous (rather than Christ righteous). But this would basically mean that the law would not be taught to normal believers, because it is not for them, which is not what Paul teaches at all.

'The law is not made for the righteous but for:

lawbreakers

rebels

the ungodly

the sinful

the unholy

the irreligious

etc..... and lastly in verse 10 and 11

' the law is for.......whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.'

It seems from verse 8 and verses 10 and 11 that the law, used well and properly, is very well meant to be used and taught to believers, in light of the gospel. It helps us to know what is and isn't the gospel, it helps us to know what is contrary to the sound doctrine that comes from the gospel. It helps us to understand sin, unholiness, lawlessness etc. To conclude that the law is only for non believers is to ignore the rest of the teaching in the very same passage.

As stated from Galatians Paul clearly wants the law to be taught properly and in light of the gospel, not tossed out as irrelevant for believers. In addition, he states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 quite clearly that '...all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'. Scripture here refers to what we call the Old Testament. Clearly, Paul does not think, as concluded by Farley and Dr. Ellis, that the law is only for non believers and isn't for all believers. In fact, he thinks the opposite. In fact, all scripture, the whole Old Testament, including the law, is useful and essential for the equipping of God's people for every good work.

What Paul is saying very clearly undermines the conclusions of both Farley, and Dr. Ellis.

Problem 2:

Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. In order to justify his statement, Farley attempts to state his logic behind the point he says:

'Under the Old, God recognized two kinds of people-Jews and Gentiles. Today, he recognizes two different groups-believers and unbelievers' (p.47, ref.1)

Farley goes on to use this point to argue that the law is for non believers, this is how:

'In the Old Testament, the law was only for Jews' so his argument here is that because the law is not for gentiles in the Old Testament, that it is not for gentiles who are believers in the New Testament. He affirms this by saying: 'Today, the law speaks to only one group, namely, unbelievers'. I have been told this directly by others who follow a lot of hyper-grace teachers-'you are a gentile, the law is not for you'.

This is a false logic for a number of reasons, firstly, he is equating non believers in the OT with believers in the new. You cannot equate OT non believers to NT believers. This also equates OT believers like Moses, with NT non believers. The logic of Farley's argument is that the law is for OT believers like Moses and it is for NT non believers now.

In addition, he also neglects the idea that the Israelites were a called out people, basically before they were Israelites, they were gentiles. Abraham was called by God to be the beginning of a nation, he was not that before God called him. In that sense, the law was given to people who were once, gentiles. Equally, gentiles could join the nation of Israel and come under the law. A couple of well known examples of this are Ruth, a Moabite and Uriah the Hittite. These gentiles came under the law, it was very much for them when they became part of God's people.

The Jews, including the well known people in the OT, were the equivalent of believers not unbelievers. Who received the law in the OT? non believers? Or people who God had already separated to be his people? If you have read accounts whenever God gave a law it was to someone who already walked with him, people who were essentially believers in God.

-Adam had the first law-do not eat (Genesis 2:17)

-Noah was given laws (Genesis 9:1-17 specifically verse 4-5)

-Abraham was given laws in Genesis 17

And if we fast forward to Moses and the law, the whole law was given to Moses (a believer) which was then passed to, by agreement, to the Israelites who acknowledged God and agreed to follow his laws Exodus 19:1-8.

The law was always given to people who believed in God and spoke with him directly or through a mediator. The law was given to OT believers, God's people, who became the Jews, but now Farley and Dr. Ellis think it is for unbelievers?

Farley and Dr. Ellis seem to completely ignore what is actually written in scripture on these matters and do not appear to have really thought through the full range of issues their perspective encourages.

Problem 3:

Andrew Farley's argument, based on the Jew and gentile divide is the reason then that the law is not for gentiles because it was for Jews only. And as gentile believers are not Jews, the law is not for them so it must therefore be for non believers. However, if this was the case it would mean that the law must still be followed by messianic Jews. Hyper-grace teachers like Farley would never support that claim, yet, if his argument is followed through, it implies that all messianic Jews should still be under the law. Which is why the logic of his claim isn't valid, therefore the claim is not valid.

Problem 4:

With the claim that the law is for unbelievers, do Hyper-grace teachers preach the law to non believers? For a start, unbelievers don't tend to read the law. If the law was for them, yet they were never going to read it, it would seem logical then that they should be preached the law.

Hyper-grace preachers do not preach the law to unbelievers. If they are so convinced the law is for unbelievers, then why don't they preach the law to unbelievers, convicting them of sin and leading them to Christ? As mentioned he blatantly states that:

'...the law speaks to only one group, namely, unbelievers'. (p.47 my italics) and yet, he doesn't then give the law to unbelievers. This is a common trend with Hyper-grace teaching. Undermine the law to believers to steer them away from it by using this argument, but then not actually seeing it through to its full conclusion.

Does Dr. Ellis preach the law to unbelievers, as he says it is for those who trust in themselves and not Christ?

In the comments on his facebook page, April 14, 2022 at 10:40 am Dr. Paul Ellis writes:

'...I generally would not use the law when witnessing to an unbeliever. ' (ref 3. b.)

Here Dr. Paul Ellis is stating that he suggests the law should not be preached to unbelievers, yet he openly supports the law being for unbelievers, those who do not trust in Christ. So there appears to be a contradiction in these ideas. It also doesn't address the fact, as with Farley's argument, that the law was given to believers in the OT and those who were actually trusting in God at the time it was given.

Problem 5:

Dr. Paul Ellis criticises churches who suggest we still need to respect the law, he writes:

'Some say the church needs a healthy respect for the law. If we are talking about the Ten Commandments or the royal law or any law that hinges on your ability to keep it, then I disagree. Rely on your own law-keeping ability, and you’ll end up fallen from grace. You will cut yourself off from Christ. ' (Ref. 2).

The logic of this is misleading. Healthy respect for the law does not automatically mean jumping to being legalistic. It does not automatically mean relying on our ability to keep it. His conclusions about what this means has no real basis. He is jumping to conclusions and being unnecessarily critical of other churches' opinions.

Take the law on honouring your Mother and Father, for example. Reading this, studying it, understanding it is simply a healthy reminder. It is also emphasised in the New Testament. But apparently respecting that teaching, according to Dr. Ellis could risk you falling from grace.

This is false, what leads us to fall from grace is the attitude to which we approach law, how we apply law and how we understand ourselves in relation to it, not the law in and of itself, nor treating it respect (as Jesus did) nor teaching well (as Paul encourages). This is where Hyper-grace makes a serious error.

Problem 6:

As mentioned Dr. Ellis has a slightly different angle on who is the law for. He argues that because of how Jesus used the law to challenge the self righteousness of the Pharisees that it shows that the law is for everyone who relies on self-righteousness and not Christ. While this would include non believers, as mentioned, it is worth looking at this aspect of his conclusion and testing its validity.

As already stated, it starts from a position of being false on the basis as already argued that this is not what the law was originally for at all. While it can function in that way, the was ultimately for God's people, not unbelievers, and not limited to self righteous people. Following the law said 'We are God's people and we follow his laws.' This limitation that Dr. Ellis suggests also goes against Paul's teaching as already covered.

With that as a basis, being enough already to refute Dr. Ellis' claim we can also look at the main point of his argument. Jesus did engage with the law to challenge people who trusted in their own righteousness. This is true. Jesus' teaching on the law certainly would lead us to conclude that we cannot be made righteous by the law, but only because of our inability to follow it, not because the law is wrong or shouldn't be taught correctly.

However, he didn't limit the law to the singular use of challenging the self-righteous. In fact just because Jesus did use it in this way at times, still does not define what or who the law was for nor what it can mean to believers. It is also important to note that Jesus also used the law to highlight how people had added to the law with traditions and teachings of men, if anything, Jesus wanted the Jews to see and use the law properly, not keep adding to it or focussing on one part to the neglect of the other. The self-righteousness of the Pharisees was based on hypocritical application of the law not an accurate application of the law.

Mark 7:1-13 goes into this and is summarised in verse 13 when Jesus says:

'Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that'.

Matthew 23:23 ' "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former'.

Jesus uses the law to challenge self-righteousness, but is that all? No. He corrects their application of the law, points them towards the whole law as being something good. He doesn't limit the use of the law in the way Dr. Ellis describes. Does Dr. Paul Ellis teach about the law the way Jesus does? No. In order to maintain the view that the law is only for non believers or the self righteous, these passages would need to be overlooked as they are in direct opposition to that type of limitation which Dr. Ellis attempts to focus on.

Look also at what Jesus says in Matthew 13:52:

'He said to them, "Therefore, every teacher of the law, who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old"'.

Here Jesus refers to the law as treasure, he also refers to the treasure old and new being brought out. Not neglected, not only for unbelievers, not only for the self righteous but brought out, being taught alongside the new treasure of the Kingdom.

When we actually look at the law and Jesus, and what he achieved on the cross, it actually means that Jesus essentially fulfilled the law on our behalf, so the law actually had great value to Christ, why would Jesus fulfil the law, if it was only for the self righteous, to be used to challenge them as Dr. Ellis claims?

The law had value to Christ, he did not limit its use as Dr. Ellis claims, he encourages, along with Paul, the correct use, understanding and teaching of the law.

Summary

These 6 problem areas clearly highlight a combination of poor interpretation, and really begs the question of motivation. Why this insistence on the law only being for unbelievers or only for the self-righteous? Clearly scripture does not limit the law to these definitions.

If you claim the law is for unbelievers, yet don't preach the law to unbelievers then that is hypocrisy and draws serious doubt over the integrity of these claims.

To recap, this teaching is false because:

1. Paul explains teaching from the law has value when done properly both in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy

2. The law was given to believers, to people who already belonged to God, it was given to people who were once gentiles and gentiles could come under the law and join the people.

3. It ignores and/or undermines a lot of scripture to maintain this conclusion.

4. It does not value the law in the way that Jesus valued the law.

It is hypocritical because:

1. Those teaching this do not then preach the law to unbelievers.

2. It leads to criticism of many churches, whilst maintaining that hyper-grace is not legalistic.

3. Teachers of this would deny that Messianic Jews would therefore need to continue in the law, yet the logic of this type of teaching would imply that very thing.

In conclusion

Hyper-grace preachers want to challenge legalism and issues that brings such as condemnation, judgement and self-righteousness. I really don't have a problem with that and it is why I looked into it in the first place. But when digging through some of the thinking I have found a significant number of issues of interpretation like this one. Their absolute rejection of law goes well beyond was it taught in scripture.

Farley and Dr. Ellis are essentially suggesting that respecting the law, honouring the law, teaching the law is a sin. They are criticising other churches for doing so and actually undermining Paul's teaching that scripture is useful for rebuking, teaching correcting and training in righteousness. How Christians are meant to engage with the law is another question which needs some attention, but this hyper-grace teaching is filled with flaws, poor grappling with scripture (largely ignoring significant sections) and misinterpretations. It lacks clarity on questions it raises, and essentially just creates a new set of rules, rules about how you engage with law that if you go against, you may fall from grace and are misusing scripture which is for unbelievers (but don't tell them anything about it).

They make the classic mistake of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' they reject legalism and the condemnation which can come from that, which is a good and positive thing, yet lump too many other things into that category. It seems that they insist on throwing out any and everything about the law for the believer. Here, clearly, respect for the law is treated by Dr. Ellis as being legalistic, however, respect and legalism are two different things.

There is clearly an agenda, 'how do we teach believers to turn from looking at the law'. The answer is in short, 'its not for you'. Then they have to match this belief with scripture, which, with their approach, doesn't match the teaching in the Old or New Testament.

How does this post empower believers? Firstly, I hope to encourage you to always come back to scripture, no matter how popular someone is, or how it sounds on the surface (Hyper-grace sounds great on the surface), test it against scripture. Feel free to agree or disagree with me on this one, but I encourage you, do it from scripture.

This is an example of how easy it is to make scripture fit a set of ideas, focussing on some passages and passing over others, in this case, an absolute rejection of the use of the law for the believer. Look at how Farley gets you to focus on 2-3 words from a passage in Galatians, but when you read the whole passage, his conclusions make little sense. Look at how Dr. Ellis focusses on one particular use of the law in the life of Jesus, and overlooks other statements. Let's learn from that.

Hunger for the truth, don't be deceived, be empowered to engage with these things through the word for yourself. God bless.

References:

1. Farley, A. (2009), the naked Gospel, Zondervan, 2009, pp.47-48.

2. https://escapetoreality.org/2022/02/02/what-is-the-law-in-the-bible/ (Accessed 26/04/2022)

3. Comments from Dr. Paul Ellis' facebook page are from:

a. 'the law is for....' (posted on 14/02/2022, accessed 27/04/2022)

b. posted on April 14, 2022 at 10:40 am(not preach the law to an unbeliever)

All Bible quotes are taken from the NIV 1984.