What do you think?
Rate this book
Law and Grace
The Christian life seems to be a confusing paradox. Evangelicals find themselves lost between law and grace, wondering where to go. This concise handbook fields this issue and wrestles it into a concise, understandable concept, useful to the average Christian.
79 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
3 people are currently reading
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 8, 2023
This book suffers severely from McClain's rejection (or ignorance) of the biblical case for the three-fold division of the law. Additionally, McClain frequently confuses justification and sanctification in the context of the use of the law in the life of the Christian and so rejects the use of the law by the Christian. At the same time, McClain wishes to establish the profitability 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 (or possibly antinomianism) 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, McClain points to James' statement in 2:10 that violating one command violates all the law as proof that the law is indivisible. But James' argument here is not that failing to love neighbor violates the entirety of the Mosaic law but rather that it violates the entirety of the moral law; every command he quotes comes from the Ten Commandments. This passage only argues for the indivisibility of all three parts of the Mosaic Law if you already assume indivisibility to be the case.
McClain's appeal to Gal 5:3 will be mentioned 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). He 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 is a designation for the entire Old Testament, not just the Pentateuch. 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 the Old Testament has been fulfilled but also the passing away of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13) must take with it the entirety of God's revelation prior to Jesus' incarnation. 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 contains within itself limitations of jurisdiction. 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" (Deut 4:5) while others, such as the construction of the tabernacle, were patterns (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.
McClain's appeal to Gal 5:3 serves as a helpful illustration of the shortcomings of his position. There Paul states that trying to keep part of the (civil) law binds the keeper to the whole of the Mosaic law. So far McClain correctly understands him but it does not necessarily follow that this is true of every part of the law. In Rom 2:26, Paul presents the hypothetical scenario of an uncircumcised man who yet "keeps the requirements of the Law". Paul then understood (at minimum) the law of circumcision to be divisible from the rest of the Mosaic law. McClain's position of absolute indivisibility is flawed.
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 his 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 his work would not "abolish the law. . ." (Matt 5:17) as McClains argues it 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.
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, McClain points to James' statement in 2:10 that violating one command violates all the law as proof that the law is indivisible. But James' argument here is not that failing to love neighbor violates the entirety of the Mosaic law but rather that it violates the entirety of the moral law; every command he quotes comes from the Ten Commandments. This passage only argues for the indivisibility of all three parts of the Mosaic Law if you already assume indivisibility to be the case.
McClain's appeal to Gal 5:3 will be mentioned 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). He 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 is a designation for the entire Old Testament, not just the Pentateuch. 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 the Old Testament has been fulfilled but also the passing away of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13) must take with it the entirety of God's revelation prior to Jesus' incarnation. 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 contains within itself limitations of jurisdiction. 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" (Deut 4:5) while others, such as the construction of the tabernacle, were patterns (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.
McClain's appeal to Gal 5:3 serves as a helpful illustration of the shortcomings of his position. There Paul states that trying to keep part of the (civil) law binds the keeper to the whole of the Mosaic law. So far McClain correctly understands him but it does not necessarily follow that this is true of every part of the law. In Rom 2:26, Paul presents the hypothetical scenario of an uncircumcised man who yet "keeps the requirements of the Law". Paul then understood (at minimum) the law of circumcision to be divisible from the rest of the Mosaic law. McClain's position of absolute indivisibility is flawed.
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 his 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 his work would not "abolish the law. . ." (Matt 5:17) as McClains argues it 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.
November 8, 2024
Alva McClain is quickly becoming one of my favorite theological authors. Here he lays out excellent arguments for viewing the law as a unified whole (not three separate laws - moral, civil, ceremonial). This law is fulfilled in Christ. We are not under it at all, but now we fulfill the law of Christ. May we look to the whole of Scripture to see the character of our Savior and emulate Him. This is the Christian standard of living. The ending chapter is weaker as it does not provide sufficient exegesis of 1 Cor. 9, but as a whole this is another tremendous entry from McClain.
July 6, 2022
This 80-page book is a clear, concise, Scripture-packed summary of the believer's relationship to the law.
December 20, 2016
McClain makes some good points, but his primary contention--that Christians are not under the law as a rule of life--seems a bit contrived, and does not follow well from his premises. I found myself nodding in agreement most of time, and shaking my head in confusion at the important times.
September 11, 2024
Good book, however, there seems to be some inconsistent thoughts in certain places.
He speaks of the unity and indivisibility of the Law(p.8), however he then goes to say that the divine Government of that law only abolished certain concessions (in referring to the Sermon on the Mount) (p.12)
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase, however he seems to refer to 1 Tim 1:9-10 as the law being for restraint. (p.25)
Regardless, the book is very useful and will challenge much of one’s thinking, especially if one holds to the three-fold division of the law. If one holds to this understanding in order to do away with the judicial and ceremonial, then he has entered into realm of speculative theology, because nowhere in Scripture is the law divided as such, but it is seen as a unit (Gal 3:10; Js 2:10)
He speaks of the unity and indivisibility of the Law(p.8), however he then goes to say that the divine Government of that law only abolished certain concessions (in referring to the Sermon on the Mount) (p.12)
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase, however he seems to refer to 1 Tim 1:9-10 as the law being for restraint. (p.25)
Regardless, the book is very useful and will challenge much of one’s thinking, especially if one holds to the three-fold division of the law. If one holds to this understanding in order to do away with the judicial and ceremonial, then he has entered into realm of speculative theology, because nowhere in Scripture is the law divided as such, but it is seen as a unit (Gal 3:10; Js 2:10)
April 19, 2023
This short book (almost a pamphlet) interacts with the relationship between the law, salvation, sanctification, and the grace of God. McClain treats several arguments surrounding the difference between legalism and antinomianism in the church. This book reminds me of reading So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie because of the strong biblical stance on salvation by grace through faith, not of works. McClain's main argument is that because of God's grace Christians aren't under the law, and it is wrong to try to put them under the law. Anyone who would claim to be a Christian should deal with the relationship between Christians and the law, and McClain's book is a helpful tool to navigate that.
February 6, 2024
This book was helpful and concise, but at times, the language was a bit stiff and wooden.
I liked this quote: “We must understand that the voice of the infinite God comes to men always through the Son, the eternal logos” (62).
I liked this quote: “We must understand that the voice of the infinite God comes to men always through the Son, the eternal logos” (62).
November 15, 2024
A thought provoking read of what the Scriptures have to say about the law. Did not agree with the author with all of his conclusions but still found it helpful.
Do agree that we’re saved by grace alone!
Do agree that we’re saved by grace alone!
December 28, 2025
Simple & scholarly. McClain seems to discuss law more than grace but not in an incorrect way.
“The law does not make men worse than they are, but rather shows more clearly how bad they are already.”
“The law does not make men worse than they are, but rather shows more clearly how bad they are already.”
December 12, 2022
Quick and easy read! McClain details the obligations modern Christians have to the Mosaic Law.
November 5, 2021
I still have so many questions.... the relationship between Law and Grace sometimes seems like theological calculus. Next I will consult Calvin's Institutes directly.
EDIT: OK, I read more on this and I ended up back at the place I was in before I became confused and felt the need to consult books on Law and Grace. Basically, this book is all about the Law as it relates to justification - NOT on the purposes of the Law, or as C.S. Lewis puts it, "the doctrine of objective value." I was reading this in hope of discovering more about this doctrine of objective value and was disappointed. The objective value of the Law is revealed in the baseline fact that the Law is just because it condemns us for not measuring up, seeing as we are not good but dead in our sins. This is the very foundation on which we see the need for grace. This book contained little of that, and so I began to think that I had gotten something horribly mixed up. However, my initial instincts were correct, and, relating to justification, this book is top notch.
EDIT: OK, I read more on this and I ended up back at the place I was in before I became confused and felt the need to consult books on Law and Grace. Basically, this book is all about the Law as it relates to justification - NOT on the purposes of the Law, or as C.S. Lewis puts it, "the doctrine of objective value." I was reading this in hope of discovering more about this doctrine of objective value and was disappointed. The objective value of the Law is revealed in the baseline fact that the Law is just because it condemns us for not measuring up, seeing as we are not good but dead in our sins. This is the very foundation on which we see the need for grace. This book contained little of that, and so I began to think that I had gotten something horribly mixed up. However, my initial instincts were correct, and, relating to justification, this book is top notch.
March 11, 2011
In this short pamphlet, McClain (a Dispensationalist theologian) lays out the manner in which a Christian is related to the Law. If you have questions about the nature, use, purpose, and application of the law both in the past and in the present, this little work does an excellent job laying out the answers from the writer's perspective.
December 5, 2013
This booklet provides a great summary of the issues surrounding the Christian and the law. I see it as an introduction to the topic, for while some of my questions were answered, many were not. In some places, he simply states a truth without giving much rationale. This makes it difficult to connect all the dots.
January 12, 2014
McClain attempts to present a classical Dispensational understanding of strong discontinuity between the Mosaic Law and New Testament. There were no surprises in his interpretation which makes the book unhelpful for those already aware of the classic Dispensational Position. There are better books on the market.
January 9, 2012
This is an excellent book for anyone seeking sound Biblical doctrine on whether a Christian should live "under the Law" or by grace... A superb commentary and resource.
August 16, 2018
A little book on New Covenant Theology. I feel I understand the position better because of this.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews