This book suffers severely from McClain’s rejection (or possibly ignorance) of the biblical case for the three-fold division of the law. Additionally, McClain tends to confuse justification and sanctification in the context of the use of the law in the life of the Christian; thus, he rejects any continuing applicability of the law to the Christian. At the same time, McClain wishes to establish the profitability for the Christian of the entirety of Scripture which leaves him in a precarious position with regard to the portions that are law. This results in McClain arguing for a weak Neonomianism that is unwilling to entirely reject some standard of law for the Christian but also refuses to allow any specific commands to apply beyond the command to love.

The problems start right away (indeed, are rooted) in chapter 1 when McClain argues that the law is “an indivisible unity” (8). He points to several passages for support; but none of these passages contradict the historic three-fold division.

For instance, as proof that the law is indivisible, McClain points to James’ statement in 2:10 that violating one command violates all the law. But James’ argument here is not that failing to love one’s neighbor violates the entirety of the Mosaic law but rather that it violates the entirety of the Moral law; each command he quotes as equally violated comes from the Moral law. This passage only argues for the indivisibility of all three parts of the Mosaic law if you already assume indivisibility to be the case.

Next, McClain appeals to Gal 5:3; we will discuss this in a moment.

McClain then points to Matt 5:19 where Christ teaches “these commandments” are not to be reduced in any way “thus upholding the essential unity of the law” (9). McClain argues the commands in view are “those set forth in the Pentateuch” on the basis that vv17-18 identify them as such. However, Jesus speaks in those verses of “the Law [and] the Prophets” which designates the entire Old Testament, not merely the Pentateuch. What is indivisible is the entirety of the Old Testament and its indivisibility is the basis for Christ’s statement in v19. “These commandments” cannot be separated from the rest of the Old Testament but stand or fall with the totality; as Jesus says “not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!” (v18).

This passage then proves too much as, according to McClain’s understanding of indivisibility, nothing of the Old Testament can pass away before everything prophesied in it has been fulfilled. And the passing away of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13) would take with it the entirety of God’s revelation prior to Jesus’ incarnation. This cannot be. Clearly McClain’s understanding does not work.

Space does not permit a full answer to the problem this poses for both the historic view and McClain’s but the solution lies in that the Mosaic law is self-limiting; that is, it contains within itself jurisdictional limitations. Some of the laws contained within the Mosaic code applied only to a certain time or place while others have universal scope; many of the laws had jurisdiction only “in the land” (e.g. Deut 4:5) while others, such as the construction of the tabernacle, were patterns of greater realities (e.g. Ex 25:9). These laws (i.e. the civil and ceremonial laws) do not pass away but they also no longer apply; their jurisdiction does not extend past the cross. The Moral law has no such jurisdictional limitation and still applies. (Additionally, it transcends the Mosaic Covenant, unlike the civil and ceremonial law.)

McClain’s appeal to Gal 5:3 serves as further illustration of the shortcomings of his position. There, Paul states that anyone who allows himself to be bound by circumcision (part of the civil law) is bound to keep the whole of the Mosaic law. But this is not everything Paul has to say about keeping circumcision. In Rom 2:26, Paul presents the hypothetical scenario of an uncircumcised man who yet “keeps the requirements of the law” and concludes that his keeping the law will be “regarded as circumcision.” The indivisibility of circumcision from the rest of the law only flows one direction; while keeping circumcision binds one to the rest of the law, keeping the rest of the law does not bind one to circumcision. This does not agree with McClain’s view of complete indivisibility.

In chapter 3, McClain rightly argues that grace is not a bending or relaxing of the law. He argues this is because “the very throne of the eternal God rests upon the inviolability of His own law which is the expression of His divine nature” (22). But in light of McClain’s insistence on a indivisible law, this claim becomes problematic. It requires the entirety of the Mosaic code to be the foundation of God’s throne and “the expression of His divine nature.” While there is a sense in which the ceremonial and civil laws can be said to express God’s divine nature, they are positive law and therefore are the reflection of God’s divine nature filtered through a particular context; they are not the reflection directly. The Moral law, by contrast, directly reflects God’s nature regardless of context. It is only the Moral law that is the foundation of God’s throne or else his throne would be overthrown with the obsolescence and disappearance of the Mosaic Covenant (Heb 8:13).

These errors quickly lead McClain astray when he asks what the relation of the Christian to the law is. He is unable to see that the Church’s historic position, holding that the Moral law remains as a rule of life, is not referring to justification but to sanctification. This lack of understanding seems to stem from his assumption that “under the law” can mean only either “‘under the law’ as a way of salvation, or ‘under the law’ as a rule of life” (48). From this he concludes that, since God’s people were once “kept. . . under the law” (Gal 3:23), it must be entirely wrong to speak of the Christian as under the law in any sense now. Modern translations show that this sense of “under the law” refers not to the law as a rule for life, but as an imprisonment. This then is a reference to being kept under the law as a covenant of works. (Other options are also available for the meaning of “under the law” such as under the law as a curse, under the law as a covenant, etc.) Because he is unable to distinguish between justification (under in the sense of imprisonment) and sanctification (under as a rule for life) in these contexts, McClain must argue that the law does not apply to the believer in any sense which leaves him with, essentially, no standard by which the Christian life is to be lived.

McClain’s solution to the above problem is to say that the Christian is to conform himself, not to God’s revealed Moral law which is a reflection of God’s nature, but rather to “the will of God in the context of His grace given in our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed perfectly in the entire Word of God” (54). Here McClain attempts the impossible of, after having argued that the law “has been abolished” for the Christian (46), trying to pull the Pentateuch back in as part of the Christian’s standard. Because the standard is “God’s will . . . as revealed perfectly in the entire Word of God,” this means the law still remains in some sense. But this sense cannot be separated from the “law as law” (46) like McClain tries to do. The grace which gives context to God’s will, argues McClain, is God’s love (see especially pp65-66, 76). He forgets that Christ specifically taught the proof of love is keeping the commands of Christ (John 14:15). Christ was clear that he would not “abolish the law. . .” (Matt 5:17) as McClain argues he did (46-47). God revealed his will for Christian living most clearly in the law which Christ wrote first on tablets of stone and later on tablets of flesh (Jer 31:33 & 2 Cor 3:3).

It is clear that McClain is attempting to remain true to Scripture. But because he misses the divisions of the law his attempts fail and he puts himself in danger of “[being] called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:19). A much better book (though also much longer) that explores the place of the law for the believer is Phillip Ross’ From the Finger of God. Also consider reading The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton. Both are grounded firmly in the historic position of the Church and do not straight-jacket Scripture with notions of an indivisible Mosaic law.