There are at least four approaches to law. In the legal tradition of the United States, Great Britain, and similar countries, that which is not forbidden by law is permitted. In other legal traditions, like that of Germany (at least sterotypically), that which is not permitted is forbidden. In Italy, as the joke goes, that which is forbidden is especially permitted, and in Russia that which is permitted is especially forbidden.

What are the practical implications of these sorts of attitude toward the law? For those cultures that are used to great freedom except for express prohibitions on behavior, there is often a great deal of pro-freedom sentiment within the culture itself, and an expectation of a legal order that is not overly burdensome. When this expectation is not met, there can be serious problems, because those used to the freedom to live within boundaries are micromanaged, there are going to be problems, whether open or private.

From my own general behavior, I’m clearly someone for whom everything that is not forbidden is permitted. I remember fondly a competition I won at an engineering competition as an undergrad student in civil engineering where the project was to make a tower out of index cards that could hold the most plates for the least cost, with various supplies like bubble gum and the cards and paper clips with certain costs. The towers, in addition, had a minimum height of two towers. My group came up with the idea to use scissors to cut the cards to make a cross brace for extra support. When we asked the person in charge about it, he said nothing, and it was not mentioned in the rules. We went ahead and did it, and won the competition because no one thought outside of the instructions. In short, we won because of our mindset toward rules and laws, and were rewarded for doing so.

We would expect those for whom everything is forbidden except that which is permitted to have the mindset of those teams in competition to us, which is to do nothing that is outside of the basic rules. To be afraid of going outside of instructions inhibits one’s creativity, which one would expect to have serious and negative consequences. Nonetheless, we would also expect those societies that want a docile and obedient approach to prefer this sort of citizen because they are much easier to be controlled than those who are always trying to think creatively. There are always balancing issues; the sort of society we prefer influences the sort of approach toward making and enforcing laws and rules, starting from young ages.

We would expect, additionally, that those who have the approach that that which is forbidden is especially permitted (by society, if not by law) would be corrupt and have a great deal of disrespect for the rule of law. This is the sort of situation we find in the Italy of Burlesconi, whose own life indicates a high degree of interest in exploiting power for personal and political corruption. When a culture grows to have disrespect for the legal order, one can expect consequences in their lack of honorable behavior in general. Our attitude toward law eventually shows itself in our behavior toward each other. A disrespect for a moral order has consequences–a lack of loyalty in relationships, a generalized acceptance of cheating to get ahead in any way possible, and other corrupt behaviors. This is obviously a mindset we wish to avoid if we are wise.

The fourth approach to law is no better than the last two. When that which is permitted is especially forbidden, there is no safety from arbitrary hostility from the authorities. The history of Russia (and those nations Russia has dominated) is full of paranoid authorities hiring spies from among the ordinary people to ferret out even the slightest hint of freedom-loving as being conspiratorial behavior, to be punished by death or exile in dreary Siberia. That sort of approach would make anyone extremely wary about government anywhere they went. Sadly, such behavior provokes rebellion, since if one is under suspicion one might as well try to rid one’s self of the threat by taking out the dictator responsible. If you’re in for the penny you may as well be in for the whole pound.

It is clear that given my own very biased perspective, the first approach is by far the best. On the one hand, prohibiting behavior in such a culture is a difficult process, requiring iteration and consistent work, but the right kind of principles can make such an task easier, dealing with behavior as it comes up under rather definite and fair hermeneutical principles. The benefits are clear–a preservation of respect for a legal order along with a respect for the creativity and freedom of one’s citizenry, providing small off-limits and large amounts of free range to explore. That sounds quite appealing to me, personally, and no doubt to many other of my even more freedom-inclined friends and acquaintances.

For those of us who are biblically inclined, there is the natural question of which of these approaches matches the biblical approach. Fortunately, such a task is extremely easy to uncover, as the Bible is very obvious about which of these four legal worldviews it endorses. Fortunately for me, it happens to endorse the first worldview toward the law, that those things which are not forbidden are permitted. In the interests of brevity, let us look at two short but obvious examples.

The first reference to biblical restrictions confirms the first legal worldview is the biblical one. Let us look quickly at Genesis 3:1-3: “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”

We see from the beginning that the serpent, the adversary of mankind, seeks to show God as a freedom-hating tyrant, and show himself to be the apparent friend of human liberty from burdensome restrictions. Of course, God had permitted mankind to eat from every tree of the garden except one, and so naturally Satan tempts mankind to eat of that one tree. Mankind always seems to fall for the same tricks, seeking to free ourselves from minor godly restrictions only to be enslaved by addictions and death. Why not rather submit to a few minor restrictions and preserve our lives and health and well-being? Why don’t we ever act sensibly?

Let us look briefly at one more example. Leviticus 18 is one of the most clear examples of the first legal worldview. Without going into too much detail (I trust you all may read the chapter yourself), the chapter prohibits a lengthy set of family relations (everything closer than cousins, including step-siblings), and other related sexual sins. But it does so in a way that clearly shows that those relationships that are not prohibited are permitted because it spells out exactly what is prohibited. The same is true in Leviticus 11 in the food laws. There are general principles along with many specific examples. Those which are not prohibited are then permitted. It’s not that complicated.

The question that remains for us is what the implications of God’s preference of the first approach are. If God was simply interested in Calvinistic automatons, He would not have created free will or used a legal approach that presupposed free will on the part of humans, rewarding them for creativity, and providing a maximal benefit. Since God provides resistible grace along with a legal approach that allows freedom outside of clearly defined boundaries, He therefore clearly desires mankind to be free but self-disciplined. And since He gives us this respect, even as we have proven ourselves unworthy of it, we therefore ought to give each other this respect in our own political and cultural systems. So let it be in earth as it is in heaven.