Describing the results of the freedom for which Christ has set us free,¹ Paul contrasted the works of the flesh² (τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) of your former way of life to the new life in Christ: the fruit of the Spirit³ (ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος), e.g., the Spirit’s “fruit, result, outcome, product, offspring; produce, crop, harvest; advantage, gain, profit” (Galatians 5:22, 23 ESV):

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law [Table].

In the aftermath of the night I didn’t kill my wife, I turned Paul’s description of God’s love into a script that I attempted to act out. That “script” became the defining rules of conduct for my new character, the part I would play from then on forever. I didn’t recognize this as hypocrisy because I was sincerely trying to do better, and I didn’t believe the fruit of the Spirit was the Spirit’s fruit.

Though I hadn’t thought about it quite as formally as I had about Paul’s description of God’s love, I believed instinctively almost that the fruit of the Spirit was more rules for me to obey:

Thou shalt exhibit the fruit of the Spirit: Thou shalt love (See 1 Corinthians 13 for specific details). Thou shalt exhibit joy. Thou shalt live in peace. Thou shalt demonstrate patience. Thou shalt show kindness. Thou shalt demonstrate goodness. Thou shalt exhibit faithfulness. Thou shalt show gentleness. Thou shalt exhibit self-control. Against such things there is no law (e.g., such things are the law).

[Hypocrisy] “embodies a purposeful intent, which stems from a deep-seated core of evil” [e.g., the old man], the conclusion of the entry “Hypocrite” on bibleone.net online reads. The corruption of the old man’s deceitful desires includes the desire to have a righteousness of my own that comes from the law⁴ as well as the feeling that I am actively engaged in the pursuit of righteousness when I do so, despite the actual situation being that I was severed from Christ⁵ and had turned away from the kingdom of God and his righteousness⁶ (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ; e.g., not “my own righteousness”).

There was an additional criteria to meet, however, in the conclusion of “Hypocrite” on bibleone.net online:

More than this, it suggests a determined effort to enforce a standard of conduct upon others, which conduct the enforcer knowingly and deliberately refuses to apply to himself–hence, action born of full knowledge and evil intent…It is the condition of a person who is controlled by the sin nature to the end-desire of having power over other human beings by imposing on them a set of rules, which he himself intentionally disregards.

I failed to meet that criteria (which, by the way, I don’t regard as necessary to Jesus’ intent). But it is curious. As legalistic as I was with myself, I don’t recall preaching Paul to my wife. Perhaps it is selective memory, but if I had harped on the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living,⁷ I think I would remember. My mother was bound by law (δέδεται νόμῳ) to a husband for whom she no longer felt any affection or respect, and with whom she no longer lived—my father. She was miserable. He was miserable. We all suffered to various degrees. I suppose, I didn’t actually want a wife who was bound by law to me.

It’s a shame I didn’t apply that learning to my relationship to God sooner (Matthew 7:12; John 14:15 NASB).

“Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets [Table].
“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

It is possible that I followed the golden rule with my wife to some extent. It didn’t occur to me to follow it with the Lord. And I didn’t hear If you love Me, you will keep My commandments as Jesus’ promise. I heard another rule: how to love Jesus.

I didn’t yet study the New Testament in Greek. Though I had begun to use a concordance to track the word usage of select Greek and Hebrew words through the Bible, I didn’t bother to learn that you will keep was τηρήσετε, a form of the verb τηρέω in the future tense and indicative mood. I didn’t yet understand that the “indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer’s or speaker’s perspective.”⁸ I hadn’t taken a college course in formal logic yet: I didn’t understand that my attempt to keep his commandments as rules I obeyed wouldn’t necessarily prove my love for Him, but was a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent.”

John wrote (1 John 4:19-21 NASB):

We love,⁹ because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot¹⁰ love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

I didn’t know yet that the Greek word translated should love was ἀγαπᾷ, a form of ἀγαπάω in the indicative mood, another statement of fact. The commandment (τὴν ἐντολὴν) we have from him is apparently of the—And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light¹¹—variety. But I thought John meant that since Jesus died for my sins, I should have an emotional response that resulted in love for God and others. Or, even if I lacked that emotional response or it was too weak or inconsistent to produce that result, love was the law.

Even as I attempted to love like God by obeying rules, I continued to read the Bible in English translation. I began to wonder if, perhaps, God’s love—with which He first loved us (αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς)—was not all finished at the cross of Christ (John 14:15-26 NASB).

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold (θεωρεῖ, a form of θεωρέω) Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you [Table]. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. “After a little while the world will behold (θεωρεῖ, a form of θεωρέω) Me no more; but you will behold (θεωρεῖτε, another from of θεωρέω) Me; because I live, you shall live¹² also. “In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I¹³ in you. “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him [Table]. “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

“These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you [Table].

Jesus didn’t seem to think that God’s love was finished at the cross, but would continue—not from some distant heavenly abode—but from within us. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you, Jesus promised after promising that his Father will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever…the Spirit of truth.¹⁴ And speaking of his Father’s love for the one who loves Jesus (he will keep [τηρήσει, a form of τηρέω in the future tense and indicative mood] My word), He said, We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.¹⁵

Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20 NASB):

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body [Table].

The words your and you are plural. While I wouldn’t suggest that the collective body is excluded somehow, these words were penned in response to the potential and prescribed actions of an individual (1 Corinthians 6:16-18 NASB):

Or do you not know that the one who joins himself (ὁ κολλώμενος) to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE FLESH.” But the one who joins himself (ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος) to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.

Truths began to align in perspicuous form:

1. We love, because He first loved us.¹⁶
2. If you love [Jesus], you will keep [his] commandments.¹⁷
3. If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word.¹⁸

Even without a college course in formal logic, statements 2 and 3 sounded like conditional promises to me. Would Jesus make even a conditional promise predicated on my weak and wavering emotions of love and gratitude?

One advantage of treating Paul’s description of God’s love as rules to obey was that it kept the depth and detail of his description of love ever before me. It seemed like an awful lot to ask of the human emotions of affection and gratitude. Another advantage was that even my laws derived from Paul’s description of God’s love functioned like the law [that] was [my] “servant whose office it was to take” me “to school,” the school of hard knocks.¹⁹ My act, based on my rules derived from Paul’s description of God’s love, wasn’t working out all that well. Though doing “incrementally better” seemed positive relative to my former actions, “incrementally better” was a very long way from the righteousness described by “my new law.”

Why didn’t I just give up? Well, I did from time to time. That didn’t seem to matter all that much. Despite my best efforts to do otherwise, I was working out my own salvation with fear and trembling, for it [was] God who [worked] in [me], both to will and to work for his good pleasure.²⁰ And it is God who continues to work in me, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. I wasn’t entirely oblivious to his working. It just seemed so on again, off again.

I wanted his working to be on again more often than off again, but I wasn’t yet recognizing that on-again-off-again phenomena as evidence of the conflict of the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth²¹ and the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit.²² I thought it had more to do with the mercurial nature of god (e.g., the false god of my imagination). But He was working on that, too.

He made sure that I would be renewed in the spirit of [my] mind,²³ providing both a hunger for, and a growing satisfaction with, his Word—the Lord Jesus Christ—through the written words of the Bible. I began to suspect that the love with which He first loved us²⁴ meant something more than my emotional response to the Lord’s death on my behalf. But the fruit of the Spirit is love²⁵ and walk by the Spirit²⁶ seemed like tantalizing clues to that “something more.”

My wife had moved out. My friend John had moved in to help with expenses. I was back at the church where I had become an atheist, believing that they “were right and I was wrong.” John attended a different church. We studied the Bible individually and together.

We thought and spoke to one another in theological jargon. We knew that salvation was divided into three parts: justification, sanctification and glorification. We knew that justification and glorification were works of God in Christ, received through faith. We also “knew” that sanctification was by our own works (James 2:19-24 NASB):

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?²⁷ Was not Abraham our father justified (ἐδικαιώθη, a form of δικαιόω) by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,”²⁸ and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified (δικαιοῦται, another form of δικαιόω) by works, and not by faith alone [Table].

Granted, there is no mention of sanctification here, yet the principle of adding my works to faith in Jesus Christ seemed thoroughly established. And the idea that sanctification was the place where my works came into play in my salvation seemed to accord well with the teaching of two different non-Lutheran, non-Catholic churches—John’s and mine. About this time, though John remained faithful to the KJV, I switched from studying the NASB to the NIV out of deference to a mentor who was discipling me (James 2:19-24 NIV):

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone [Table].

Translating both ἐδικαιώθη and δικαιοῦται considered righteous sealed the deal for me. Who would be considered righteous but the one who did righteousness? And sanctification was the only part of salvation left to add my works of righteousness to faith. So, sanctification was by my works. Jesus seemed totally on board with that (Luke 18:18-24 NIV).

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”²⁹

“All these I have kept³⁰ since I was a boy,”³¹ he said.

When Jesus heard this,³² he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.³³ Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became³⁴ very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him³⁵ and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter³⁶ the kingdom of God!

This exchange was a treasure trove when I searched the Bible for rules to obey. Even if I allowed that come, follow me was an allusion to faith, the ratio of my works added to my faith seemed roughly equivalent to Peter’s admonition to make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.³⁷ Even my Dad quoted: “pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on you.”³⁸

The only fly in the ointment was Paul (Galatians 5:4 NIV):

You who are trying to be justified (δικαιοῦσθε, another form of δικαιόω; “considered righteous”?) by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace [Table].

Only Paul seemed uncompromising on this point. Jesus was uncompromising in what seemed like the opposite direction (Matthew 5:48 NIV):

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [Table].

How could both statements be true? I might have given up right then and there, except that I had moments—all too brief moments—when love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control flowed into me as if from an external source. And that love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control seemed to dominate (cause?) my actions. It was on-again-off-again, more off-again than on-again at that time. But it made me wonder if the fruit of the Spirit might, perhaps, just possibly, maybe, have more to do with God than with me (but that would be cheating, wouldn’t it?).

I still thought the on-again-off-again nature of my experience of the fruit of the Spirit was due to the mercurial nature of god (e.g., the false god of my imagination), but this time I recognized that it might be in response to me. I even began to use the words—the old man and the new man—to rationalize that phenomena, though I still recognized them only as a kind of shorthand for my works before Christ and what my works should be after Christ. The almighty I decided which works were manifest. They were still my works accomplished by my will according to my obedience.

I had not yet quit my factory job to study to prepare for writing the “Tripartite Rationality Index.” I had not yet come to terms with my unexamined faith “that faith was opposed to reason as reason was opposed to faith.”³⁹ And I had not even begun to recognize my antipathy to faith.

Yet after that amazing time [e.g., studying to write the “Tripartite Rationality Index”] I was still disgruntled. Writing this has forced me to ask myself why. The answer that comes to me is that I was not actually as open-minded as I like to remember the story. I was trying to find a rational alternative to faith (i.e., that arrived at the same conclusions but required no faith). My best effort was indistinguishable from faith. In other words, I had failed. So as the Lord and I did our postmortem on those years, I said the time was better than I had expected (recalling my parents and hitting a baseball), but that I was still inclined to wish for never having been born.⁴⁰

It would be many years before I learned that, according to the Koine Greek Lexicon online, the verb of being ἔσεσθε, translated be in the phrase Be perfect, was a form of εἰμί in the future tense and indicative mood: “The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer’s or speaker’s perspective.” In other words, Jesus promised: “You will be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [Table].”

The confusion that resulted from my experience—that I did “incrementally better” as an actor attempting to love like God by obeying rules of love as the “choices” made by my new character—is no longer an issue. Of course, an actor attempting to imitate God does “incrementally better” than one slavishly obeying the dictates of the old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires.⁴¹ Some actors are better than others. But a righteousness of one’s own achieved by obeying rules as an actor plays a part is not the righteousness of God…revealed [in the gospel⁴²] from faith for faith;⁴³ it is certainly not the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [that causes one to] reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.⁴⁴ Though hypocrisy is not the unforgivable sin, it is an attempt to be justified by law and a falling away from grace.⁴⁵

But God’s love wasn’t finished at the cross. Jesus continued to draw us to Himself. His Holy Spirit energized John and me to study Paul’s writings in enough detail to begin to perceive the difference between God’s gift of righteousness and our own achievements of righteousness by our own efforts.

According to a note (14) in the NET, Paul quoted from Genesis 2:24 in 1 Corinthians 6:16. A table comparing the Greek of that quotation with that of the Septuagint follows.

Tables comparing 1 John 4:19, 20; John 14:19, 20; James 2:20 and Luke 18:20-24 in the KJV and NET follow.