Where no law is, there is no transgression

These two days I have been rushing through the translation of some Catholic Heritage webpages. I even missed writing the Passion Sunday blog. Now that I have finished translating my portion, I am already two days behind. There is no point rewriting the Sunday blog. I had better move ahead though it is impossible to finish the book of Romans within schedule, Lent. I know the book is not easy to handle. Perhaps I should allow myself more time to finish the remaining three quarters.

Today, I want to reflect on one particular verse in the Romans about the Law. It is an intriguing Pauline thought. Once again, the thinking pattern of people two millennia ago was very different from ours today. It reads.
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression
ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται: οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις.  (Romans 4:15).

At first sight, it is a tautology. Some activities do not yet have any legal definitions to spell out the punishment. For example, on roads without speeding limit signs, James Dean and his buddies would freely drive their cars like crazy. When they knocked down and caused the death of a 500-year old tree, the driving action was not yet punishable. But when they knocked down and injured or even killed a pedestrian, the same driving action became a transgression of a piece of law written somewhere in the law book. That is obvious.
Let us take another perspective to look at the situation. I have no intention to offend powerful tycoons in Hong Kong. I just want to bring my readers' attention to the fact that many rich people are able to employ legal experts to help them make use of legal loopholes to obtain advantages. All too often, legal battles are games of the rich. They are able to win hopeless cases with legal technicalities, to pass environmental feasibility tests and to increase fares/tariff despite earning astronomical profits etc. But why, then, did Paul write about this?

On one hand, Paul is supporting the Law and does not want people to take advantage of justification by faith to allow themselves to do whatever they desire (Romans 3:31). On the other hand, he proves that keeping the Law does not brings righteousness after Lord Jesus had sacrificed himself on the cross for us. That the Law is inadequate has been proven. Paul uses the example of Abraham's circumcision to show the superiority of faith over Law. God's promise to Abraham is effected by the faith of Abraham, not by any law because the Torah was not yet given at that time. Then, he further exhibits the limitations of the Law. The Law does not brings God's promise but God's wrath because where no law is, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15).

So, what is transgression? Is it the same as sin?
For Paul, sin is something we have done below standard, coming short of God's glory, missing the bull's-eye. Transgression, on the other hand, is going beyond the standard, overdoing something. In this case, the Law lays down the boundary, set up the standard. While sin falls short of the standard, transgression goes over it. In many cultures, both overdoing and not doing enough are no good. For example「過猶不及」【論語‧先進】.

However, this is not the key point of Paul. He is not trying to tell us that the Law can never be complete. There will always be loopholes because the world is changing. New things which the Law has not covered will arise. No. Paul is not telling us that the Law is incomplete therefore keeping the Law cannot justify us. This is a valid argument but Paul is not saying this. Instead, he makes use of the concept of transgression to show that the Law, while setting up a standard, a boundary, brings God's wrath upon us at the same time.
Does it mean that without the Law, God's wrath would not descend upon us? Don't be naive! Abolishing all the Law will of course not save us from God's wrath. This kind of logic is wrong. There are many other ways in which we can incur the wrath of God. Setting up the Law is just one of the many ways. For example, before the Israelites received the Ten Commandments, they made a golden calf and worshipped it. God was angry. Could the Israelites say that they did not know it was wrong to worship idols? Some natural disasters are natural. But some shamans would attribute the disasters to the lack of piety on part of the natives. They should offer more sacrifices. However, I am sure no shaman would be so stupid as to legalize the number of sacrifices to offer a year. Because no matter how many sacrifices you legalize, there will always be chances of disasters. So, if we think of natural disasters as God's wrath, even without the Law on appeasing the deities, God's wrath will surely come down upon us.

So, what does Paul want to say?
Paul was making Abraham as an example to show the importance of faith for our salvation. Paul was discussing the promise God made to Abraham. The promise was that Abraham and his offspring would inherit the world through the righteousness of faith, not of the Law (Romans 4:13). Why not the Law? Hasn't God sworn that He would show mercy for thousands of generations to those who keep His commandments (Exodus 20:6).
Of course, Paul knows that God would show mercy to those who keep His commandments. However, Paul later argues that it is impossible to keep all the commandments. Therefore, we will surely incur God's wrath for three to four generations (Exodus 20:5). We will come to this point in later reflections.
More basically, when we know the Law, we will test the Law. Like students who want to test the patience of their teachers, children who want to test their parents, we too will go a little bit beyond the Law to test God, to see whether God will punish us. That is why laying down the Law will not help us attain God's promise. Instead, the Law becomes an obstacle because it provides us with a knowledge to test God's patience. We will incur God's wrath with this abuse of the knowledge of the Law.

Dear Lord, have mercy on us. Help us make good use of the Law to come close to You. Amen.