Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or
lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια, which is
"unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no
obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves
"antinomian", but the charge is often levelled by some sects against competing sects.
Antinomianism in the Old Testament
Throughout the Hebrew Bible, different covenants are described; two of them are the Davidic and the
Mosaic. The Davidic adds an emphasis of God's unconditional commitment to the Mosaic's apparent
emphasis on God's demands; however, both Moses and David describe the same covenant, a covenant that was further expounded by
Elijah, Isaiah, and the other prophets, who have to remind followers repeatedly of God's demands. It is stated in the Bible that certain
powers will try to change (not expound) the Mosaic Law, for example, in speaking of the end times - Daniel 7:25:
- "He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the
sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into
his power for a time, two times, and half a time." (NRSV)
Antinomianism in the New Testament
Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims
several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed a priority on orthodoxy (right belief) before orthopraxy (right practice). The
soteriology of Paul's statements in this matter has always been a matter of dispute (for
example see 2 Peter 3:16); the ancient gnostics interpreted Paul to be referring to the manner in which embarking on a path to
enlightenment ultimately leads to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted salvation. In what has become
the modern mainstream Christian orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to salvation
simply by trusting Christ. See also New Perspective on Paul.
Paul used the term freedom in Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e not obeying Mosaic Law). For
example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the
law" and in Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to
Paul:
- "They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs." (NRSV)
Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic
views, for example the NIV translates: "...He forgave us all our sins, having
canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to
the cross."; however the NRSV translates this same verse as: "...he forgave
us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the
cross."; which makes it sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross."
The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον (see Strong's G5498,
literally "something written by hand") which is variously translated as "written code" or "record". However, within the context
of the following verses, especially verse 2:16 where Paul states that current behaviour is also free from 'judgement', it appears more likely that Paul,
or whoever wrote Colossians, is claiming the Law itself has been abolished.
(Notice that even the NRSV speaks of "the record ... with its legal demands", which may indicate a law code rather than a charge
sheet.)
Romans 10:4 is also sometimes cited: "Christ is the end of the law so that
there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (NIV) The key word here is telos, see also Strong's G5056. Robert
Badenas in Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985, ISBN 0905774930, argues that telos
is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law. Andy Gaus' Unvarnished New
Testament, 1991, ISBN 0933999992, translates this verse as: "Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to be on the
right side of [God's] justice."
Also cited is Ephesians 2:15: "...abolishing in his flesh the law with its
commandments and regulations..." (NIV)
On the other hand, Paul also wrote or spoke in support of the law, for example: Romans 2:12–16, 3:31, 7:12, 8:7–8, Gal 5:3, Acts 24:14, 25:8 and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as
idolatry: 1
Cor 5:11, 6:9–10, 10:7, 10:14, Gal 5:19–21, Eph 5:5, Col
3:5, Acts 17:16–21, 19:23–41.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Judaizers notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not
interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem]
circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested
at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May
Not Be Taught the Torah notes the following reconciliation: "R. Emden (), in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained
in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and
especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah
and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of
Moses and the Sabbath."
The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there
was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just,
Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called
"Jewish Christians" or Pillars of the
Church although in many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law"
(Romans 3:31). In Galatians 2:14, part of the "Incident at Antioch" [1], Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he does go on
to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behaviour that the
church should not tolerate (E.g. Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Cor 6:9-10). In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 he cites Jesus' teaching on divorce "(not
I but the Lord)" and does not reject it, but goes on to proclaim his own teaching "(I,
not the Lord)", an extended counsel regarding a specific situation which some interpret as not in conflict with what the Lord
said. However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6-10), but in that case he would have attributed the teaching to the Lord, rather than saying: "I, not
the Lord."
The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that our good works justify before men our faith after salvation and we are to obey the Law of God, that a
person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone, that faith without works is dead (2:14–26). Historically,
the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in salvation by faith alone. Martin Luther even suggested that the Epistle
might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity, see also
Antilegomena). Though this may be interpreted through the word "justified." It speaks that
faith in Jesus Christ is the first step and that faith is justified through good works, he goes on to say that without spreading
your love and faith, it is dead. Works are the evidence of faith. It's not faith and works; it's faith that works. See also
Law and Gospel, James 2:20, Romans 2:6,
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification.
The Torah prescribes the death penalty for
desecrating the sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the
Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as
laws, see Halakha. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for this
(Mark 7:7-9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus
notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming
crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet
Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." In the
Gospel of Mark, Jesus's disciples were picking grain for
food on a sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, he pointed to
Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected complete
adherence to the Torah. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it
should be obeyed in context. e.g., E. P. Sanders [2] notes: ". . . no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard
to Sabbath, food, and purity laws. ... The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and
it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so." There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and
were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law. (See Jewish
Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages. See also Christianity and
Judaism.)
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes
portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term ergazomenoi tēn anomian (εργαζομενοι την
ανομιαν) - e.g. Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43. Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as evildoers, though
it literally means workers of lawlessness[3]. In
other words, Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Scholars view Matthew as
having been written by or for a Jewish audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars argue that Matthew
artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate Matthew's intended audience. However, Jesus called
for full adherence to the commandments. ( Matthew 5:19-21) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) A parallel verse to Matthew 7:21 is James 1:22.
See also Expounding of the Law, Great
Commission, Hyperdispensationalism.
1 John 3:4 NRSV states:
"Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
Antinomianism among Christians
In the case of Christianity, the controversy arises out of the doctrine of grace, the
forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ; Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the
Old Testament polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits
and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law, see Cafeteria Christianity. They would ask, if God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in
sinning, or the reward or purpose of obedience?
Multiple issues
There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given
theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that
tend to erode the authority of the church and its right to prescribe religious practices for the
faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to
government and established authority and the rule of law.
Charges of antinomianism against early Christians
St Paul's doctrine of justification by faith has
been accused of leading to immoral licence. In Acts 6:13-14 Saint Stephen is accused by "false witnesses" of speaking against
the law. The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in Gnosticism;
various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox enemies. In the
Book of Revelation 2:6–15, the New Testament
speaks of Nicolaitanes, who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that
suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate. In the Apostolic
Constitutions, verse 6.19[1], Simon Magus is accused of antinomianism,
though traditionally he is accused of Simony. We have few independent records of actual Gnostic
teachings, but they seem to have approached the question in two ways: Marcionites, named by
Clement of Alexandria Antitactae (revolters against the Demiurge), held the Old
Testament economy to be throughout tainted by its source; but they are not accused of licentiousness. For example,
Marcion's version of Luke 23:2: "We found this fellow [Jesus] perverting the nation
and destroying the law and the prophets".[2] Manichaeans, again, holding their spiritual
being to be unaffected by the action of matter, regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Kindred to this
latter view was the position of sundry sects of English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who denied that an elect person
sinned, even when committing acts in themselves gross and evil.
Charges by Catholics against Protestants
Roman Catholicism tends to charge Protestantism with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of
sola fide, salvation by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9, cf. James 2:24), and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental liturgy of the Roman church and its body of Canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise
Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales,
charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.
Charges by Luther against Agricola
Different from either of these was the antinomianism charged by Martin Luther
against Johannes Agricola. According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Antinomians: "a term apparently coined by Luther to
stigmatize Johannes Agricola and his following, indicating an interpretation of the anti-thesis between law and gospel, recurrent from the
earliest times." Its starting-point was a dispute with Melanchthon in
1527 as to the relation between repentance and faith. Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to
produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the
gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in
Luther's lifetime) is not remarkable for the precision or the moderation of the combatants on either side. Agricola was
apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527. His eighteen Positiones of
1537 revived the controversy and made it acute. Random as are some of his statements, he was
consistent in two objects:
- In the interest of solifidian doctrine, to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of
good works on a sure ground;
- In the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its
precepts.
Charges against Calvinists
From the latter part of the 17th century, charges of antinomianism were frequently directed against Calvinists, on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The virulent
controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism
(1771–75).
Charges against other groups
Other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists and
Mennonites. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts.
Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness,
and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life
among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. It seems true, however, that, for example, Antinomian groups were radicalised and
sympathetic to the activties of Levellers and other kinds of resistance against the burgeoning of Capitalism, enclosure and the
Slave Trade (The Many-Headed Hydra, Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker). The persecution of such groups by the establishment in
the form of conservative puritans is best exemplified in the punishment meted out to the preacher James Naylor, who was subjected to 310 lashes and branded on the forehead before having his tongue pierced
by a hot poker. He had preached against enclosure and the slave trade[citation needed].
Charges against Quakers
Quakers were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a
graduate clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as the privileging of the Spirit (as revealed by the
Inner Light of God within each person) over the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal
authorities and their laws (such as the paying of tithes to the State church and the swearing of
oaths) when they were seen as inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God. See also Christian anarchism.
Antinomianism in Islam
In Islam, the law—which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics,
banking, and sexuality—is called sharīʿah (شريعة), and it is traditionally organized
around four primary sources:
- the Qurʾān, which is Islam's central religious
text;
- the sunnah, which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often thought to include the ḥadīth, or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
- ijmāʿ, which is the consensus of the ʿulamāʾ, or
class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
- qiyās, which—in Sunnī Islam—is a kind of
analogical reasoning conducted by the ʿulamāʾ upon specific laws that have arisen through appeal
to the first three sources; in Shīʿah Islam, ʿaql ("reason") is used in place of qiyās
Actions, behaviors, or beliefs that are considered to violate any or all of these four sources—primarily in matters of
religion—can be termed "antinomian". Depending on the action, behavior, or belief in question, a number of different
terms can be used to convey the sense of "antinomian":
shirk ("association of another being with God"); bidʿah ("innovation"); kufr
("disbelief"); ḥarām ("forbidden"); etc.
As an example, the 10th-century Sufi mystic
Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj was executed for shirk for, among other things, his statement
ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" and, by implication—as al-Ḥaqq ("the Truth") is one of the
99 names of God in Islamic tradition—"I am God"[4]. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn al-ʿArabi, a 12th–13th century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk[5].
Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the Ismāʿīlī Shīʿīs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies
arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism[6], the Ismāʿīlīs developed
a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imāmah and an esoteric exegesis of the
Qurʾān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as shirk and, hence, to be seen as
antinomian[7]. Certain other groups that evolved out of
Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawites[8] and the Bektashis[9], have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are
especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of forbidden
products like alcohol and pork, the non-wearing of the
ḥijāb ("veil") by women, and assembling in gathering places called cemevis rather than in mosques[10].
The use of the antinomian idea in a secular context
- See also: Anarchism
In his study of late 20th century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm (Age of
Extremes, 1992) stated that there was a new fusion of 'demotic and antinomian' characteristics that made the period distinct, and
appeared to be likely to extend into the future. He did so without any particular focus on religion. He had started his academic
life before World War 2 as a marxist, and continued to see an historian's work as identifing causes of change. For him there is
now a readiness by the mass of people to have little sense of obligation to obey any set of rules that they consider arbitrary,
or even just constraining, whatever its source. This may be facilitated by one or more of several changes. These include: the
tendency to live outside settled communities; the growth of enough wealth for most people to have a wide choice of styles of
living; and a popularised assumption that individual freedom is an unqualified good.
Notes
References
- Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective 1985 ISBN 0-905774-93-0 argues that
telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law, end of the law would
be antinomianism
- Bar-Asher, Me'ir Mikha'el and Kofsky, Aryeh. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy.
Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 90-04-12552-3.
- J. H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872)
- Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0-88706-885-5.
- Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN
1-85065-708-4.
- Daftary, Farhad; ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN
0-521-45140-X.
- Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
- Encyclopaedia of the Orient. "Isma'ilism". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
- Freedman, David Noel. (1998). Anchor Bible
Dictionary, Antinomianism, ISBN 0385193513
- J. C. L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
- G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's Realencyklopadie (1896)
- Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing
Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-3.
- Riess, in I. Goschler's Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
- Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
- Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes.
Retrieved 10 October 2006.
- This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia
Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public
domain.
- Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker "The Many-Headed Hydra" Beacon Press, Boston, 2000
See also
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)