Tag: Law and the Believer

October 17: Galatians 2:15-16

Galatians 2:15-21

For the daily notes this week, I will be reproducing, in modified form, an earlier set on Galatians 2:15-21. These verses comprise the central proposition (propositio) of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and a detailed treatment of them is necessary as a supplement to the current series of studies (in the Saturday Series feature) on Galatians, examining the letter from the standpoint of rhetorical criticism.

Before proceeding, you may wish to consult an earlier note in which I discussed the prior episode at Antioch as narrated by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14 (the final section of the narratio, 1:11-2:14). Paul’s statement in verse 14b leads into the famous passage in vv. 15-21, which serves to establish the basic issue at the heart of the letter—the propositio, according to classical rhetorical categories. The series of notes on these verses tracks along with the following division of the propositio:

    • Note 1 (vv. 15-16) [below]—Basic proposition regarding justification and the Jew/Gentile distinction
    • Note 2 (vv. 17-18)—Rhetorical argument to show the problem with applying the Law to (Gentile) believers
    • Note 3 (vv. 19-20)—Relation of the believer to the Law
    • Note 4 (v. 21)—Concluding argument regarding justice/righteousness

Galatians 2:15-16

It is often debated whether Paul’s words to Peter end with verse 14 or continue on into vv. 15ff. From a literary (epistolary) and rhetorical standpoint, I believe the direct address to Peter ends with v. 14 (along with the narration [narratio] of vv. 1-14); Paul deftly (and seamlessly) makes the shift from Peter to the Galatian audience of the letter here in vv. 15-16. This becomes clear when we look closely at the two statements which make up this verse pair:

V. 15: “We (who are) by nature Yehudeans [i.e. Jews], and not sinful ones [i.e. sinners] out of the Nations [i.e. Gentiles]…”

He draws a distinction, entirely from a traditional Jewish point of view, between Israelites/Jews who live according to the Covenant established by God and the Law (of Moses), and non-Jews (Gentiles) who live apart from the Law and Covenant. According to this religious distinction, faithful and observant Jews are considered “righteous”, while non-Jews (and faithless/disobedient Jews) are considered to be “sinners”. Paul admits this distinction (from a religious standpoint) and uses it as the starting point for his argument; it also serves as a point both ‘sides’ can agree upon—Paul, on the one side, and Jewish Christians (who believe all Christians should be circumcised and observe the Law), on the other. The emphatic use of the first person plural pronoun (h(mei=$, “we”) immediately establishes the common ground—Paul associates himself here with another Jewish Christian (i.e. Peter, implied).

Verse 16 is more complex, and, in rendering it, I would break it down into outline form—it begins “[but] seeing/knowing that…”:

    • “a man is not declared just out of [i.e. by/from] works of (the) law
      • if not through trust of Yeshua (the) Anointed
      • and we (indeed) trusted in (the) Anointed Yeshua
    • (so) that we might be declared just out of [i.e. by/from] trust of (the) Anointed (One)
      • and not out of works of (the) law
      • (in) that out of works of (the) law
    • all flesh will not be declared just”

Note the way that the three ‘outer’ clauses or phrases emphasize justification (being “declared just/righteous”), whereas the ‘inner’ pairs of clauses/phrases juxtapose trust (or faith) “of/into Jesus” and works “of the law”. The ‘outer’ portions themselves form a guiding chiasm:

    • A man (i.e. individual person)—not declared just (from works of law)
      • We (i.e. believers) might be declared just (by faith/trust in Jesus)
    • All flesh (i.e. all persons, collectively)—not declared just (from works of law [implicit])

The participle that begins this verse (ei&dote$, “having seen/known [that…]”) joins it to v. 15, and implies that, this too, is a proposition both ‘sides’ can agree on. Indeed, many (if not most) early Jewish Christians, like Peter, would have granted that ultimately it is by faith in Jesus, and not by observing the Law, that believers are “justified” and “saved”. Almost certainly, Jewish Christians who might make statements such as that in Acts 15:1 were a relatively small (if vocal) minority. The difference is that Paul regarded the less extreme view and behavior of Peter (and other Jewish Christians in Antioch) as essentially leading to a denial of this fundamental proposition—the denial being that faith/trust in Jesus ultimately was not sufficient to establish a right religious standing before God.

In the episode at Antioch (vv. 11-14), according to Paul’s account, there is no suggestion that Peter (or any other Jewish Christian) was claiming that Gentile believers had to be circumcised or follow the Torah regulations (dietary laws, etc) in order to be saved. Rather, by shying away from contact with the Gentile believers, in the presence of important Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, Peter was, in a subtle way (and no doubt unintentionally), indicating that there was something different between Jewish and Gentile believers. Any hesitation for a Jewish believer to be in fellowship and contact with an uncircumcised (and ritually impure) Gentile believer was a tacit admission that there was not a complete and unfettered bond of unity between them. Indeed, such religious scruples violated and effectively disrupted the unity of believers. Paul saw the matter as most serious, as his argument indicates, and his powerful statements regarding the place of the Law (Torah) in the New Covenant have enormous consequences for the entire concept of Christian identity.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to mention the difficulty in rendering the verb dikaio/w (dikaióœ), as well as the related noun dikaiosu/nh (dikaiosy¡n¢) and adjective di/kaio$ (díkaios). Translators are generally torn between “just/justice” and “right/righteous(ness)” The basic idea underlying the dik– word group is conformity with what has been established (in society, i.e. custom, tradition) or with (moral/religious/legal) direction. Overall, “just/justice” best captures the social and legal aspects in English, whereas “righteous(ness)”, in particular, is almost entirely limited to a specific religious sense.

The main problem is the verb dikaio/w, as there is nothing really corresponding to it in English. Literally, it would be “make right/just”, but this is somewhat awkward and potentially misleading; “declare just” perhaps better fits the legal sense, but this too can be misleading when used in a spiritual or theological context. Typically, “justify” is used to translate, but in modern English this verb has virtually lost its proper legal sense, and necessitates special technical usage in the New Testament (esp. in Paul’s letters). Needless to say, the subject is immense, and requires careful study of all the relevant passages.

Two additional points of translation (and interpretation) are worth mentioning:

    • The genitive construct used in verse 16— “the trust/faith of Jesus” —is best understood as an objective genitive, i.e. “faith in Jesus”. The parallel and synonymous Greek expression is “faith ei)$ [lit. into] Jesus”. This primarily refers to faith/trust directed toward Jesus, but one should not ignore the dynamic, participatory aspect implied by the literal rendering “into”.
    • The expression “works of (the) law”, now also found in the Qumran texts (4QMMT line c27, hrwfh ycum), is distinctive to Paul’s thought. By it, he means active observance of the commands and ordinances of the Old Testament Law (Torah or “Law of Moses”), particularly in its ritual/ceremonial aspect. Here in Galatians the reference is primarily to circumcision, but would also include the sacrificial offerings, observance of holy days (Sabbath, Passover, etc), dietary regulations, and so forth—even extending to supererogatory acts of religious devotion which go beyond the letter of the law.
      By juxtaposing the parallel genitive expressions “works of law” and “trust of Jesus”, Paul creates a contrasting distinction, highlighted by: (a) “trust/faith” vs. “work/act”, and (b) the use of the preposition ei)$ (trust into/unto Jesus) which Paul takes rather literally—Jews may be “in” (e)n) the Law or Christians “in” Christ, but by trust/faith one moves “into” (ei)$) Christ; in other words, faith in Jesus brings about a dynamic change of religious, existential, and spiritual situation for the person.

Notes on Prayer: Galatians 1:8-9; 6:12-17

Galatians 1:8-9; 6:12-17

There are no direct references to prayer in Galatians, nor do we see anything like the positive points of exhortation that are associated with the prayer-references in the other letters of Paul. The main reason for this has to do with the controversial nature of Galatians, and the harsh rhetorical polemic he uses in the letter. In the introduction and closing sections, where Paul typically offers thanksgiving and exhortation for his readers, he instead presents a harsh attack against his opponents. The seriousness of the issue, in Paul’s mind, required this different approach. Indeed, at stake was the truth of the Gospel itself and very identity of what it means to be a Christian.

Somewhat shockingly, instead of a positive reference to prayer in the introduction (exordium) of the letter (1:6-10), Paul actually includes a curse formula (vv. 8-9). The tenets of classical rhetoric allowed for the use of threats or curses, though usually as a last resort, in cases where it is felt that the intended audience had already been persuaded by the arguments of one’s opponent. However, the inclusion of a curse-formula in the introduction is most unusual, it being far more common (and appropriate) to occur toward the conclusion (peroratio section, cf. below) of the speech or letter.

I have recently discussed the introduction (exordium) of Galatians from a rhetorical standpoint. It can be divided into three parts:

    • Vv. 6-7: Statement by Paul of his reason for writing (causa)
    • Vv. 8-9: Double-curse formula
    • V. 10: Rhetorical question that serves as the transition (transitus) to the next section (the narratio, 1:11-2:14)

Here is the causa of vv. 6-7, in which Paul states his reason for writing to the Galatians. A sense of anguish and frustration comes through in his words:

“I wonder that so quickly you (would) set yourselves away from the (one hav)ing called you in (the) favor [of the Anointed], (and) to a different good message, (for) which there would not be another, if (it were) not (that) there are some (people) troubling you and wishing to turn away [i.e. distort] the good message of (the) Anointed.”

Paul’s approach here is indirect, using a method called insinuatio. This approach tends to be used when the audience has (already) been won over by the arguments of the author’s opponent(s). The present tense verbs in vv. 6-7 indicates that the influence of Paul’s opponents on the Galatians is something current and ongoing.

The forcefulness of Paul’s language is also an indication of the urgency of the situation. He begins, “I wonder/marvel [qauma/zw] that…”, a deliberative rhetorical technique that draws attention to the course of action being taken (or about to be taken) by his audience; similarly, his use of the adverb taxe/w$ (“[so] soon/quickly”). It is a device of ‘indignant rebuttal’, implicitly attacking the things said and done by the opposition side.

Indeed, Paul immediately establishes two sides, tied to a particular view of the “good message” (Gospel) proclaimed by the early Christians. On one side, we have the Gospel as proclaimed by Paul (and his fellow missionaries), and, on the other side, the version of the Gospel held by his opponents.

This sense of conflict relates to the two important themes being developed by Paul: (1) the essence of the Gospel message, and (2) the legitimacy of Paul as an apostle proclaiming this message. His primary focus is on the first point—the essence and truth of the Gospel. This is why he speaks of a “different” (e%tero$) or “another” (a&llo$) Gospel—that is, a version of it different from the one he has proclaimed to the Galatians. It is not clear, at this point in the letter, what this “difference” entails, only that the matter is most serious, in his mind. This explains the forcefulness of the language here in the causa, but also the introduction of the curse-formula that follows in vv. 8-9.

Paul cleverly disparages the view of the Gospel held by his opponents, in verse 7, by emphasizing that there really cannot be a different Gospel—i.e., there is only one Gospel, and by implication it corresponds with Paul’s version of the Gospel. Indeed, he goes on to say that he would not even bother to speak of “another” Gospel, were it not for the fact that there have been some (tine/$) people “troubling” (vb. tara/ssw) the Galatian believers with their claims and teachings. Paul states that these ‘other’ people actually wish to the distort/pervert (vb metastre/fw) the truth of the Gospel.

The seriousness with which Paul views the matter is indicated by the double curse (anathema) he gives in verses 8-9. Paul’s use of the device here illustrates two pertinent facts: (1) that his opponents have been successful, to some measure, in persuading the Galatians; and (2) it shows the seriousness and urgency with which Paul views the matter. It was most serious, indeed, for a missionary or leading figure in the Church to proclaim a “different” Gospel:

“But, even if we, or a Messenger out of heaven, should proclaim as (the) good message [to you] (something) alongside of [para/] the good message which we proclaimed to you, may he be set up (as cursed)! As we have said before, even now again I say: if anyone proclaims as (the) good message to you (something) alongside that which which you received along (from us), may he be set up (as cursed)!”

The key word is the preposition para/, which fundamentally means “alongside” (so translated above). However, if something can be placed alongside, then it must be separate and different. In English, we would get this across more generally by saying “besides” —i.e., any version of the Gospel besides the one we have proclaimed.

The curse formula involves the term a)na/qema, which literally means “something set up” (vb a)nati/qhmi). Often the word is simply transliterated in English (as anathema), but it is better to give an actual translation. In the particular religious context of a curse, the idea is that something (or someone) is “set up” as accursed—or, we might say, “given up” (given over) to God’s curse. And, indeed, anyone who utters such a curse-formula (as Paul does here) intends God to bring a curse down on the person who is “set up” to be accursed. Thus, the curse-formula can be seen as a genuine type of prayer, albeit one which makes many Christians quite uncomfortable. It was much more common and accepted as a religious-cultural custom in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world. Even so, it is worth pointing out that Paul makes use of such a curse-formula only on very rare occasions (1 Cor 16:22; cf. also Rom 9:3).

Paul’s curse is intended against anyone proclaiming a “different” Gospel. As is clear from reading through Galatians, for Paul the “different” Gospel, in this instance, relates specifically to the idea that believers in Christ continue to be obligated, under the binding authority of the Old Testament/Jewish Law (the Torah), to observe its regulations. Circumcision was the primary regulation in view, but certainly other regulations (such as the dietary restrictions) would have been mandated as well. Paul vehemently opposed such a view of the Gospel, and argues vigorously against it all throughout Galatians.

He states his position memorably in the propositio (2:15-21), and then proceeds to ‘prove’ it in chapters 3-4, utilizing six main lines of argument. By the time we reach the close of the letter, Paul has given an extensive treatment of the subject, following the ‘proofs’ of chaps. 3-4 with a lengthy exhortation (exhortatio) in 5:1-6:10. This exhortation entails a stern warning against adopting the Torah regulations and accepting the Law as binding for believers (5:1-12). He emphasizes, rather, that the guiding force for all religious and ethical conduct is the abiding presence of the Spirit, coupled with the exemplary teaching of Jesus (principally the ‘love command’).

At the conclusion of the letter (6:11-18), Paul returns to his earlier condemnation of his opponents. However, rather than repeating a curse-formula in this peroratio section, the condemnation is implicit, given through a description of the conduct (and intentions) of his opponents. The language is harsh and unremitting, even if an actual curse-formula is avoided:

“As many as wish to have a good appearance in the flesh, these (person)s would make it necessary (for) you to be cut around [i.e. circumcised], (but) only (so) that they might not be pursued [i.e. persecuted] for the stake [i.e. cross] of (the) Anointed.” (v. 12)

He imputes to his opponents a pair of unworthy motives: they wish to appear good in people’s eyes (“in the flesh”), and to avoid being persecuted as Christians; on the latter point, presumably persecution by other Jews is in mind. He goes on in verse 13 to claim that these people do not really keep the Torah regulations themselves, meaning that their emphasis on observing the Torah is not due to a particular religious or moral concern about the regulations; rather, they want to be able to boast “in the flesh” of the Galatians (i.e., that they were circumcised, etc).

Paul proceeds in vv. 14-15 to emphasize again the complete unimportance of circumcision for believers in Christ. To insist on believers being circumcised is, in Paul’s mind, a perversion of the Gospel, and one that is worthy of the strongest possible condemnation.

In verse 16, we have the closest thing to a prayer-wish in Galatians. It relates back to Paul’s declaration in verse 15:

“For cutting around [i.e. circumcision] is not anything, and neither (is having) a foreskin, but (only) a new formation [kti/si$] (counts for anything).”

This new formation (or foundation, kti/si$) of the entire person—that is, of the believer in Christ—transcends and surpasses any prior religious or cultural distinction. Paul offers a blessing for everyone “(who) will walk in line by this rule” (tw=| kano/ni tou/tw| stoixh/sousin). The “rule” (kanw/n) is the principle expressed by Paul in v. 15 (and throughout Galatians); for those who live and ‘walk’ by this principle, Paul wishes peace and mercy from God for them. This is essentially the reverse of his earlier curse-formula. He extends this blessing even to all the Jewish Christians who are part of the true “Israel of God”. Jewish and non-Jewish (Gentile) believers together form the new people of God, and are equal with one another, united in Christ. Anyone who would attack this unity, by attempting to introduce (or re-introduce) a religious-cultural distinction as a part of the Christian identity, will face severe judgment from God.

The Law in the Letter of James (Part 2)

James 2:14-26

This is the famous treatise of James on “faith and works”, which I have discussed at length in a recent study (on the Reformation-principle of justification by faith). Commentators continue to debate the relationship between James’ view on “faith and works” and that of Paul. As was discussed in the aforementioned study, Paul, especially in Galatians and Romans, consistently uses the term “works” (e&rga) as a shorthand for “works of the Law” (e&rga no/mou; for the corresponding expression in Hebrew, cf. the Qumran text 4QMMT). By this is expression is meant the dutiful performance or observance of the regulations laid out in the Torah. In the James treatise, however, it is clear that the author does not use the term e&rga in this Pauline sense.

The context of 2:14-26 demonstrates that “works” refer primarily to charitable acts on behalf of God’s people (believers) in their time of need (vv. 15-16, 25). Thus e&rga here does not refer to the Old Testament Law (Torah), except insofar as such acts of care and compassion represent a fulfillment of the “love command”. While it is not certain that the treatise depends on the previous section (vv. 1-13), there is reason to think that the reference to the “love command” in verse 8 informs the discussion in vv. 14-26 as well.

In other words, by acting with love toward believers (“brothers” and “sisters”) in need, we are fulfilling the Law, as it is embodied in the (single) “love command”. James does seem to share—with Paul and the Johannine writings—the understanding that the Law, for believers, is effectively summarized (and embodied) by the command to love. For more on this, cf. the special note on the expression “the royal law” in 2:8.

James 3:13-17

Following the instruction on ‘taming the tongue’ in 3:1-12, the author turns from the tongue (speech) to the heart—that is, the underlying intention (and impulse) that leads to the things we say and do. In this regard, it is worth considering how James views the means by which one controls the tongue (i.e., how one speaks). The motifs of the bit/bridle used to control a horse, or the rudder that steers a ship, are traditional, and can be found in a wide range of Greco-Roman philosophical and wisdom texts. It is especially common in Stoic authors, and is perhaps best exemplified by Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish contemporary of James); see, for example, his lengthy statement in On the Special Laws III.223ff (for other references, cf. Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 186-190).

According to this line of philosophical argument, it is the mind, or reason, the highest part of the soul, that is able to curb the lower passions and base impulses. For James, and from the early Christian standpoint, it is the soul (and mind) that is conformed to the Divine Wisdom, as represented especially by the teaching and example of Jesus. In verses 13ff, the author contrasts the Wisdom “from above” (a&nwqen) with the ‘wisdom’ that is earthly (“upon the earth,” e)pi/geio$). The heavenly, spiritual Wisdom is characterized by gentleness and humility (prau+/th$, etc), and the speech and conduct of believers should demonstrate such Wisdom. A person’s “works” (actions) will come naturally out of a habitual behavior that is imbued with the Wisdom of God. The term for this ‘habitual behavior’ is a)nastrofh/, which literally means “turn up,” i.e., turn/move about. The true believer will live and move in accordance with God’s wisdom.

The main point, in terms of our study here, is that the guidance is internal (coming from within the person), rather than governed through external means (i.e., laws/regulations that are imposed from without). Though the Spirit is not specifically mentioned in this context, there are general parallels with the contrast, between heavenly and earthly wisdom in vv. 13-17, and Paul’s famous treatment of the “fruit of the Spirit” (vs. the “works of the flesh”) in Gal 5:16-24. For James, the locus of this ethical conflict is in the heart (v. 14), though there is certainly still a place for external teaching (especially that which reflects Jesus’ teaching) in helping Christians develop a pattern habitual thought and behavior that is guided by Wisdom.

James 4:7-10

The author’s ethical instruction continues, along much the same lines, in the next section (4:1-12). The righteous (believers) are contrasted with those who remain rooted in the world and follow the worldly passions. The key verb is e)piqume/w, which means to have one’s impulse (qu/mo$) upon (e)pi/) something; in English idiom, we would say, ‘have one’s heart set upon’ something. The worldly (= ‘earthly,’ cf. above) impulses are directed toward various kinds of sensual pleasure (h(donh/), which, when unchecked, ultimately leads to sinful and violent behavior.

Again, the source of this conflict is within the person. Here, instead of the term “heart” (kardi/a), the word pneu=ma (“spirit”) is used (v. 5). This is not a specific reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the traditional philosophical idea of the ‘higher part’ of the soul; or, framed in more dualistic terms, it is the good part (the “good spirit”) that is in conflict with the “evil spirit”. It was instilled by God as pure and good, but is attacked, and can be corrupted, by the impulse toward sin and evil.

James goes no further than this traditional idiom, and no systematic treatment of the soul, the effect of sin, and what is changed for believers in Christ, is offered here. Even the exhortation that follows in verses 7-10 is traditional in orientation, and is framed in general religious terms that would be accepted by Jews and Christians alike. Two verbal imperatives introduce the instruction in verse 7: u(pota/ssw (“be under order”) and a)nqi/sthmi (“stand against”). The first verb indicates the believer’s relationship to God: to be (or put onself) under order to God—which may be explained as the order of things as God has arranged it. The second verb refers to the opposite: the believer’s relationship to the Devil. This exhortation to “stand against” the Devil is also found in 1 Peter 5:5.

For Israelites and Jews, the primary way that one puts himself/herself under order to God (vb u(pota/ssw) is by faithfully observing all that God commanded in the regulations, etc, of the Torah. James, like many early Christians, has clearly generalized and internalized (or spiritualized) this dynamic. One is to “come near” to God, and thereby cleanse (vb kaqari/zw) and make oneself holy (i.e. pure, vb a(gni/zw). The wording in verse 8b likely alludes to Psalm 24:4, combining the idea of clean hands (action/behavior) and a pure heart (intention/thought/desire).

The adjective “two-souled” (di/yuxo$) is parallel with “sinner” (a(martw/lo$), and characterizes the wicked worldly ones as those whose own (good) spirit is influenced (and corrupted by) the evil spirit. This also suggests a person who is of “two minds”, with a tendency to upright, but also to sinful, thought and behavior. In the Testament of Asher (3:1) this is described as “having the face of goodness and the face of wickedness”; the terminology is part of a traditional Jewish ethical instruction that was inherited by early Christians (cf. Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 226-7).

James 4:11-12

The answer for Christians, with regard to how they/we are to respond in the face of such ethical conflict, again has an inward focus. This begins in verse 9 with the exhortation to mourn and weep, suggesting an attitude of repentance. The wording is similar to Jesus’ Woe in the Lukan Beatitudes (6:21, 25), in which case it derives from an original message of judgment (against the wicked). But this simply reflects the ‘reversal of fortune’ motif in such ethical instruction: i.e., the one who mourns now will rejoice in the end (and vice versa). In other words, the righteous person who mourns for his/her sin and suffering now will not come to mourn in the final Judgment.

Along with this attitude of repentance, the believer should have a spirit (and mind) of lowness (tapeino/$) and humility “in the sight of the Lord”. The teaching in verse 10 is proverbial, and may reflect the saying of Jesus in Matt 23:12 par.

A more direct command is given in verses 11-12, along with a shift back to the theme of the tongue (i.e., our speech/speaking). Clearly, the tendency to speak evil reflects a conflict (and corruption) in the heart. The specific verb used here is katalale/w, “speak against,” or “speak down (on)”. While the proper meaning is general—that is, speaking evil against someone (in any manner)—it can also have the more technical sense of slandering someone. It is typically included as part of traditional sin/vice lists (cf. 1 Peter 2:1-2, 12), and is especially significant as being representative of the (non-violent) evil that can be directed against another person.

It is this representative character of “speaking evil” that explains the author’s comments that follow in vv. 11-12. James treats this sin as a particularly egregious attack against the Law itself. Let us see how he phrases the matter:

“You must not speak against one another, brothers. The (one) speaking against a brother, and (thus) judging his brother, speaks against (the) Law and judges (the) Law; but if you judge (the) Law, you are not a doer of (the) Law, but a judge.” (verse 11)

By speaking against another person, one speaks against the Law, which essentially means that such a person brings judgment against the Law, putting himself/herself in the role of a judge. But since God is the source of the Law, such a person essentially puts himself/herself as judge in place of God—which would be the height of wickedness. While this certainly involves a bit of rhetorical hyperbole by the author, the basic point is clear enough, and generally follows the early Christian tendency to epitomize the entire Law in the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18). We see a similar general principle expressed in the Testament of Gad 4:1f, where sin against another person (summarized as “hatred”) is especially egregious, since

“…it works lawlessness even against the Lord Himself. For it will not hear the words of His commandments concerning the loving of one’s neighbour, and it sins against God.” (Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 228-9; transl. Charles)

The fact that this situation described by James involves speaking evil against another believer (“brother”) strongly indicates that the term “law” (no/mo$) here refers specifically (and especially) to the “love command” —that is, the Law as it now applies to believers in Christ (cf. the earlier note on 2:8). The final warning in verse 12 reinforces how serious a matter such “evil speaking” is.

James 4:17

One final verse should be considered, at least briefly, in our study. It is the maxim given by the author in 4:17:

“Therefore (the one) having seen (what is) fine [i.e. good] to do, and (yet) does not do (it), it is sin for him.”

It ties the idea of sin to the failure to perform certain actions. This could well be seen as reflecting a traditional Jewish understanding of the Torah regulations as binding (obligatory) requirements. A failure to perform (or observe) any of these requirements represented a fundamental sin, and a violation of the covenant that had to be rectified (through ritual means). As we have seen, such a view of the Torah does not appear to be in view for the James (and the Jewish Christians to whom he is writing). However, is it possible that he still has in mind a certain set of obligatory commands, involving things that must be done?

Most of the ‘commands’ and exhortations provided by the author are framed as negative prohibitions (“do not…,” “you must not…”), and these tend to relate in some way to teachings of Jesus, such as those recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (on the parallels between James and the Sermon on the Mount, cf. the list in Part 1). A good example of this is the prohibition against swearing oaths in 5:12, which almost certainly represents a version of Jesus’ saying in Matt 5:34ff, also recorded separately in other early Christian writings (e.g., Justin, First Apology 16.5).

As far as positive actions are concerned, these are more or less subsumed under the “love command”, called the “royal law” in 2:8, and properly represents the Law of Christ, the perfect “law of freedom” (1:25). As I have noted, the letter of James shares with other early Christians the emphasis on the “love command” as an embodiment (for believers) of the entire Old Testament Law. While this effectively reduces the Torah regulations to a single command, it involves a principle that relates to virtually every area of the believer’s life.

Where James differs from other New Testament authors, is in his tendency to preserve the context of the love-principle, within the teaching of Jesus—which he frequently quotes or makes allusion to (without necessarily stating that it comes from Jesus), in a manner that Paul, for example, does not. He essentially treats these as authoritative teachings, but as part of a wider ethical and religious instruction that is to be internalized, until it becomes an integral and habitual part of one’s thought and action. While James (and his audience) may have possessed an authoritative collection of sayings, similar to the Sermon on the Mount (of which there are numerous parallels and allusions in the letter), there is no indication that these were thought of as anything like a law-code that would take the place of the Torah. The work known as the “Teaching [of the Twelve Apostles]” (Didache), in its early chapters, comes closer to that kind of treatment of Jesus’ teachings, but I do not find it present in the letter of James.

References marked “Dibelius-Greeven” above are to Martin Dibelius, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by Heinrich Greeven, translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975).

January 4: John 1:17

John 1:17-18

Verses 17-18 represent the final portion of the Johannine Prologue, and our study of them will bring these notes on the Christ-hymn in the Prologue to a close. As with the other two ‘additions’ to the hymn, in vv. 6-9 and 12b-13, verses 17-18 follow one of the three main poetic units (or strophes), interpreting the lines and applying them in the unique context of the Johannine theology.

There are two statements, in verses 17 and 18 respectively; and, while they are connected, they are also distinct, and we will examine them each in turn.

Verse 17

“(For it is) that the Law was given through Moshe, but the favor and truth (of God) came to be through Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

For commentators who prefer to see vv. 17-18 as a continuation of the poetry of the Prologue-hymn, they can be read as a couplet with antithetic parallelism, i.e.—

“(It is) that the Law was given through Moshe,
but Favor and Truth came to be through Yeshua (the) Anointed”

There certainly is a strong antithetic parallelism at work in verse 17, involving three points of contrast:

    • Subject: Law | Favor and Truth
    • Means: through Moses | through Jesus
    • Action: “was given” | “came to be”

We will examine each of these points in turn.

1. “Law” vs. “Favor and Truth”

By “law” (no/mo$) is meant the written collection of regulations and requirements, etc, recorded in the books of Exodus-Deuteronomy, and customarily referred to as the “Instruction” (Torah)—given by God to His people Israel. The Greek word no/mo$ fundamentally signifies something that is “allotted” or “assigned” to a person, and, as such, has a relatively broad and comprehensive range of meaning. It can refer to any kind of accepted or authoritative custom, tradition, social or religious norm, etc. In the New Testament, it almost always refers to the Old Testament Torah, as an authoritative law-code—i.e., the “Law of Moses”.

The word no/mo$ is relatively rare in the Johannine writings, never occurring at all in the Letters. However it does occur 15 times in the Gospel, more than in any of the other Gospels (compare with 9 in Luke, 8 in Matthew, and none in Mark). The most substantial usage of the word occurs in the Sukkot (Tabernacles) discourses of chapters 7-8. The main section is 7:14-24, set midway during the feast, as Jesus is teaching in the Temple precincts. He is in conflict with the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem, a dispute which appears to be a continuation from the discourse in chapter 5. The implication of the discourse is that Jesus himself is the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, and, if the Jewish leaders claim to accept the Torah, then they should accept Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s Torah. This point is reflected in Jesus’ famous rebuke to the religious leaders in 5:39.

The noun xa/ri$ means “favor” (i.e. the favor shown by God to His people), though it is typically (and less accurately) translated as “grace”. This contrast between the Law and “grace” is reminiscent of Paul’s line of argument in Galatians and Romans. His main concern is religious, and he argues vigorously that believers in Christ—Gentile believers, especially—are no longer required, as a religious obligation, to observe the regulations of the Torah. The basis of the Christian religious identity is trust in Jesus, and it is the guiding presence of the Spirit that takes the place of the Torah in the New Covenant. All that remains of the Old Covenant is the “love command”, as defined by the teaching and example of Jesus.

This summary of the Pauline theology is generally in accordance with the viewpoint of the Johannine congregations, as expressed through the theology of the Gospel and First Letter. However, there is a somewhat different point of emphasis at work. Paul’s argument repeatedly stressed that the New Covenant in Christ means the end of the Old Covenant (for more on this, cf. the detailed discussion in the articles of my series “Paul’s View of the Law”).

The Johannine portrait, on the other hand, tends to emphasize the person and work of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Covenant. Throughout the Gospel, in various ways, Jesus effectively fulfills many types and figures of the Old Testament religion—the Temple, the Festivals and their symbols, the Passover sacrifice, and so forth. This is discussed and documented in some detail in the articles on the Gospel of John in the series “Jesus and the Law”.

The pairing of “favor and truth” was used earlier in verse 14, in reference to the Divine do/ca of the Logos. The final strophe of the hymn makes the point that the incarnate Logos (Jesus) possesses the very honor/splendor (do/ca) of God, much as a son possesses the do/ca of his father. God the Father has filled the Son with His “favor and truth”. As I discussed previously, in the context of the Johannine theology, this “favor and truth” essentially means the Spirit of God. I.e., the Father fills the Son with His own Spirit, so that the Son (Jesus) is able to give it, in turn, to those who trust in him.

2. “through Moses” vs. “through Jesus”

The point of contrast here involves the means by which the Covenant was established for the people of God. The Old Covenant, governed by the Torah, was established “through Moses”, while the New Covenant (of the Spirit) was established “through Jesus”. The preposition in each instance is dia/ (“through”). The parallelism is thus precise: Moses vs. Jesus.

Moses is mentioned a number of times in the Gospel, usually in terms of his close association with the Torah (and the Scriptures which contain the Torah). In verse 45, reference is made to Moses having “written” down the Torah, and the Torah as part of the authoritative Writing (i.e. Scripture) is very much in view in this contrast between the Law and Favor (xa/ri$). Both in Jesus’ dispute with the religious leaders in 7:14-24 (see above), and in the earlier discourse of chapter 5 (esp. the climactic verses 39-46), Jesus portrays himself as the true fulfillment of the Torah. If the Jewish leaders actually believe what Moses wrote, then they will trust in who Jesus is.

The Jesus/Moses parallel is motif that runs throughout the Gospel, as the following points will illustrate:

For a similar contrast between Old and New Covenant (written Torah vs. Spirit), drawing upon Moses traditions, see Paul’s famous line of argument in 2 Corinthians 3.

3. “given” vs “came to be”

The final point of contrast involves the verb that is used. The Law was given (vb di/dwmi) through Moses, but the Favor and Truth of God came to be (vb gi/nomai) through Jesus. As we have seen, throughout the Prologue the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) refers to created beings (in contrast to God, who is). However, in the case of the pre-existent Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God, it has the special meaning of incarnation—the Logos “came to be flesh” (v. 14), i.e., came to be born on earth as a human being.

This context makes it absolutely clear that Jesus is to be seen as the fulfillment of the Torah in his own person. This human life and existence of the Logos included the mortality of flesh and blood, even to the point of suffering and death (i.e., shedding of blood). On the importance of the idea that Jesus (as the incarnate Son of God) endured a real death and shed real blood, see both the historical detail in 19:34 and the discussion in 1 Jn 5:6-12. The ‘Eucharistic’ references in the Bread of Life Discourse (6:50-59) should be understood in this light as well. It was the sacrificial death of Jesus that allowed the Spirit to flow out to believers, symbolized by the figure of “water and blood” (19:30; 20:22; 1 Jn 5:6-8; cf. also 7:37-39).

Moses was an intermediary in the communication of the Torah to the people of God. However, the ancient Sinai tradition itself suggests that the original intention and ideal was for YHWH to speak directly to the people, without an intermediary. This is fulfilled for believers under the New Covenant, through the abiding presence of the Spirit, as Paul beautifully and powerfully expresses in 2 Corinthians 3. The Johannine Discourses develop the same idea in various ways, a theological development that reaches its climax in the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33) and the great Prayer-Discourse of chap. 17.

Justification by Faith: Galatians 2:15-21

This article represents a re-start of Reformation Fridays as a regular feature on this site. I introduced this feature some time ago, and the commemoration this weekend of the Festival of the Reformation (Oct. 31) seemed like a fitting moment to begin posting articles for it again. The purpose of the feature is to examine the Scriptural basis for a number of the key principles and tenets of the Protestant Reformation. It is intended at least as much as an opportunity for critical exegesis of the relevant Scripture passages, as it is an evaluation of Reformation beliefs. I begin with the doctrine of justification by faith (and the principle of sola fide), having initially posting studies on Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:6ff/Romans 4:3ff, with Paul’s treatment of the underlying Old Testament passages Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6; and will continue the same subject here.

One of the main differences between the Pauline and Reformation views of “justification by faith” is that Paul was working from within a distinctive Jewish religious (and cultural) framework regarding the role of the Torah; thus, for him, the contrast between faith and “works” was oriented toward the binding obligation of Israelites and Jews to observe the regulations of the Torah, and how this relates to the religious identity of believers in Christ. The Reformers and early Protestants tended to understand “works” more broadly and generally, as any attempt by human beings to achieve (or regain) a right standing with God. This generalizing was a natural byproduct of the application of Paul’s teaching to the Reformers’ own situation in the early 16th century, responding to the wide range of binding traditions, legalism, and dependence upon ecclesiastical institutions, which, over the centuries, had come to be firmly established and widespread within the (Roman) Catholic Church.

While Paul would not necessarily have disagreed with this Protestant broadening of the doctrine (see esp. the Pauline teaching in Eph 2:8-9), his main concern was the relationship between Jewish tradition and the new religious identity of believers. For this reason, his use of the term e&rga (“works”) has a technical meaning, as a shorthand for “observing the regulations of the Torah”, with the implication that there is a binding obligation (i.e., requirement) to do so. Paul writes on this subject extensively in the letters to the Galatians and Romans; I have discussed the matter in considerable detail in the articles on “Paul’s View of the Law” (in the series “The Law and the New Testament”). Perhaps the best way to encapsulate this here in a short space is with a brief study on Galatians 2:15-21, which represents the beginning of his main line of argument in Galatians, and is thus his oldest surviving piece of writing on the subject.

Galatians 2:15-21

In the preceding verses 10-14, Paul is narrating an episode that occurred at Antioch, involving a conflict between he and Simon Peter. The conflict centered on the observance of the Torah purity laws and the traditional Jewish views regarding certain kinds of contact (eating and drinking, etc) with non-Jews (Gentiles). According to Paul, Peter backed away from eating with Gentiles publicly, when certain Jewish Christian representatives from Jerusalem (“some [people] from James”) arrived. While Peter may simply have done this out of polite respect for the Jewish Christian visitors, Paul viewed such separation as a fundamental violation of Christian principles. He states it this way:

“I saw that he [i.e. Peter] did not set (his) foot straight toward the truth of the good message [i.e. Gospel]”

By separating from Gentile believers when Jewish believers were present, the implication, according to Paul, was that, in order for the Gentile believers to maintain full fellowship with the Jewish believers, they would have to become Jewish, taking on the obligation to observe the Torah, including the dietary and purity laws, etc. This was a subtler form of the same issue involving circumcision—i.e., whether (Gentile) believers in Christ were obligated to be circumcised—which was at the heart of the conflict in Galatians. In both instances, it involves what Paul calls “making it necessary [vb a)nagka/zw] (for the) nations [i.e. Gentiles] to (live) as Jews” (v. 14).

It is not entirely clear how far the quotation of Paul’s words to Peter extends; in any case, vv. 15ff certainly continues the same line of argument. Verse 16 provides a lengthy statement of Paul’s teaching on ‘justification by faith’, along with the implications of this doctrine:

“seeing that a man is not made just/right out of works of (the) law, if not through trust of [i.e. in] Yeshua (the) Anointed, even we [i.e. who are Jews] trusted in (the) Anointed Yeshua, (so) that we might be made just/right out of trust of [i.e. in] (the) Anointed (One), and not out of works of (the) law, (for it is) that out of works of (the) law all flesh will not be made just/right [i.e. no person will be made right]”

Here, the “works” are specified as “works of (the) law” (e&rga no/mou), where the “law” (no/mo$) refers to the regulations, statutes, and precepts of the Torah. The verb dikaio/w, as previously noted, has the basic meaning “make right, make just”, sometimes in the judicial sense of “establish justice, declare (a person or situation to be) just”. The religious connotation of Paul’s use of the verb is of a person being in “right standing” with God.

Paul’s line of argument in vv. 15-18 is complex and clever, and can be a bit difficult to follow on a casual reading. He starts from the premise that Gentiles are “sinners” (v. 15), in the traditional religious (and cultural) sense that they are outside of the covenant between God and Israel, and thus do not observe the Torah. This is the basis for the religious-cultural division between Jews and non-Jews. The remainder of the line of argument can be paraphrased and interpreted as follows:

    • Believers in Christ are “made right” through their trust in Jesus (as the Anointed One), and not through fulfilling the terms of the covenant and observing the Torah (v. 16); Paul treats this as something all Christians (even Jewish Christians) would agree upon =>
      • Given that this is the case, to treat Gentile believers as though they were essentially still ‘sinners’, in the traditional religious-cultural sense (separate from Israel and the covenant), means that, in spite of being “made right” through trust in Christ, believers are still marked as “sinners”; Jewish believers who live in a similar manner, associating freely with Gentiles, would be “sinners” as well (v. 17) =>
        • This effectively would make Jesus Christ a “servant of sin”, which of course would be impossible, and is itself a horrifying thought (“may it n[ever] come to be [so]!”) =>
          • Moreover, Christ’s sacrifice dissolved (vb katalu/w) the Law (Torah) and the old covenant, and its binding force was removed for us, as believers, by trust in Jesus (v. 18a); thus, if we maintain or keep in place the requirement of observing the Torah, we re-create (“build again”) the religious-cultural distinction (of Gentiles, etc) as “sinners” =>
            • Such a person re-establishes sinfulness by keeping in force the idea of sin as transgression (“stepping over”) the Torah regulations (v. 18b), and so becomes a transgressor himself

This line of argument explains the consequences of the false premise that believers—and Gentile believers, in particular—are still required to obey/observe the Torah (“works”), whether it be the requirement of circumcision, the dietary laws, associating with people deemed ‘unclean’, or any other regulation. In verses 19-21, Paul proceeds to expound the true premise: that believers are freed from the binding force of the old covenant, and are “made right” with God through trust in Jesus. To illustrate this, Paul uses the motif of a person who dies, and is thus set free from any binding obligations during his earthly life. The illustration is given with more precision in Romans 7:1-6, but the same idea is clearly expressed here in Galatians as well. Through trust in Jesus, the believer participates in the death of Christ, and so dies with him. The person dies to the Law (Torah) and to the power of sin which the Law makes manifest (through its regulations); according to Paul’s unique understanding of the role of the Law in keeping humankind bound under sin’s power, the Law plays an active role in leading believers to salvation (3:22; Rom 5:20-21; 7:7-13). Thus, Paul can say, paradoxically, that he dies to the law through [dia/] the law, expressed vividly and strikingly by the image of the piercing nails of crucifixion (cp. Col 2:14). While we die to the law, we live in Christ, participating in his resurrection just as we participate in his death. And this life comes from the power of Christ himself (his Spirit, the Spirit of God) living in us. This inner power of the Spirit of Christ replaces the outward force of the Torah regulations (cf. 2 Cor 3).

Clearly, Paul used the term “works” (e&rga), both here and elsewhere in his letters, in a very distinctive sense, as a shorthand for the expression “works of the Law” (e&rga no/mou), by which he meant observing the regulations and requirements of the Torah [For more on the background of this expression, cf. the Qumran text 4QMMT]. However, there are other passages in the New Testament were “works” are understood in a somewhat different way, and these, too, have a bearing on the concept of “justification by faith”. The two most notable of these are James 2:14-26 and Ephesians 2:1-10 (esp. verses 8-9), and we will consider both passages in the next article.

For more detailed commentary on Gal 2:15-21, see my earlier note-set, along with the article in the series “The Law and the New Testament”.

The Law and Sin in Romans 7:7-25

The famous passage in Romans 7:7-25 has been discussed countless times by commentators and theologians over the years, and it is not remotely possible even to begin surveying this scholarship—nor all the relevant aspects of interpretation—within one relatively short article. My purpose here is threefold:

    1. To offer my view on the essential context of the passage—namely, the force and significance of Paul’s use of the first person (“I”)
    2. To present an exegetical outline, in the hopes of illustrating, clearly and simply, how Paul understands the relationship between the Law and Sin in the context of the passage.
    3. To give a summary distillation on “Paul’s View of the Law”, in terms of this particular passage.

The “I” of Romans 7:7-25

Paul casts this section in the first person, using “I, my”, etc throughout. This has given rise to considerable debate among interpreters over the centuries, and especially in more recent times. Is the use of the first person autobiographical (describing Paul’s own experience), or is a rhetorical and literary device? Most critical commentators today assume the latter, and, in this, they are almost certainly correct; even so, the question would still remain—who precisely is Paul representing in this section? There are several possibilities:

    • Human beings generally, prior to the coming of Christ
    • Israelites/Jews specifically, prior to the coming of Christ (or prior to faith in Christ)
    • Human beings (believers) prior to coming to faith in Christ
    • Believers generally in their struggle with the flesh and sin

A comparison with Romans 5:12-21 suggests that Paul in 7:7-12 is drawing upon the condition of human beings up until the time the Law (Torah) was introduced. Both passages provide colorful interpretations of the situation described in the Genesis 3 narrative, with Sin as the main actor; note, for example, the way sin “deceives”—e)capata/w in v. 11, compared with a)pata/w in Gen 3:13 [LXX]. Paul personalizes the narrative, giving a dimension of psychological realism and drama to it. The introduction of the Law (Torah) in vv. 9ff might suggest that Israelites and Jews specifically are in focus; however, by verse 22 it becomes clear that a somewhat wider view of the Law is meant—one which embraces all human beings (Jews and Gentiles alike). I take Rom 7:7-25 as parallel with 5:12-21—in the earlier passage, Paul is describing the presence and work of Sin in the world (e)n ko/smw|, v. 13); while in 7:7ff, it is the presence and work of Sin in the flesh (e)n th=| sarki/, v. 18). This focus within the human being makes Paul’s personalizing approach (“in me” e)n e)moi/, “in my flesh” e)n th=| sarki/ mou) both appropriate and effective.

Rom 7:7-12 is cast in the past tense, 7:13-25 primarily in the present. This would seem to indicate that in vv. 13ff Paul is describing the current situation of human beings (“under the Law” and “under Sin”): (a) prior to the coming of Christ, and/or (b) prior to faith in Christ. However, there are several details in the text—especially in vv. 13-25—which could be taken as applying specifically to believers in Christ, i.e., of the struggle believers face with regard to the flesh and sin even after coming to faith. Here are the most notable:

  • Verse 9—e)gw\ de\ e&zwn xwri\$ no/mou pote/ (“I was living apart from the Law then”). Elsewhere, Paul uses the expression “separate/apart from the Law” (xwri\$ no/mou) referring to faith and the work of God in Christ (Rom 3:21, 28; 4:6, etc), so one might think that the Christian condition is meant here as well. However, almost certainly, Paul is simply indicating the human situation prior to the introduction of the Law, with no/mo$ used in the strict sense of the Old Testament/Jewish Torah. The verb za/w (“live, have life, be alive”) is meant in the ordinary, conventional sense of human life and existence, and not of “life in Christ” or “eternal life”.
  • Verse 9—h( a(marti/a a)ne/zhsen (“sin came up to life”). The verb a)naza/w could be understood as “be alive, come to life again“; this might mean, in a Christian context, that sin died once (through Christ) and then came to life again (for believers). Probably, however, the force of the particle a)na here is simply “up”—i.e., that sin sprang up to life through the command of the Law.
  • Verse 17—nuni\ de\ ou)ke/ti e)gw\ katerga/zomai au)to\ (“now [it is] no longer I working/accomplishing it…”). Within the context of vv. 13-25, this could certainly be taken in the sense that a person (i.e., a believer) does not truly will to commit sin, and that it is the sin dwelling/remaining in the flesh which can act against a person’s will.
  • Verse 22—kata\ to\n e&sw a&nqrwpo/n (“…according to the inner man”). Elsewhere, Paul uses this language in relation to the inward (spiritual) renewal of believers (2 Cor 4:16), and the same expression “the inner man” is used in Eph 3:16. It is sometimes assumed that the expression refers to something only possessed by Christians, but this is far from certain. Paul also refers to a renewing of the mind (nou=$) in Rom 12:2 (cf. also Eph 4:23), an aspect of human nature presumably possessed by believers and nonbelievers alike. His idea of the “inner man” in the context of Rom 7:7-25 probably relates more to the human mind and conscience generally.
  • Verse 25—Curiously, after Paul’s declaration of thanksgiving in v. 25a, introducing God’s work through Christ which rescues human beings from the “body of death” (v. 24), he restates the situation of the human condition, from the prior verses, in v. 25b. This could be taken to mean that the conflict so described applies specifically to believers, even after coming to faith in Christ.

Perhaps the strongest association of the conflict in Rom 7:7-25 with believers comes from the parallel in Gal 5:17, where Paul briefly describes a dynamic similar to that in Rom 7:13-25. Clearly, in Gal 5:16-25, Paul is addressing believers who are in the Spirit, and yet he speaks of a conflict with the flesh in terms very much like those in Rom 7. But it is just here that we find the greatest difference between the two passages—in Rom 7:7-25 the person struggles against the flesh, but also against the Law and Sin, whereas in Gal 5 only the flesh is involved. According to Paul’s teaching, believers in Christ are freed from bondage to the Law and sin; but he never claims a similar freedom from the flesh—Christians must continue to struggle against the flesh, dying to its influence every day, through identification with Christ’s own death, and through the guiding work and power of the Spirit.

An exegetical outline of Romans 7:7-25

In this section, Paul especially addresses the relationship between the Law and Sin. He does this first by way of an important rhetorical question in v. 7a: “What then shall we declare? (Is) the Law sin?“—to this, he gives a decisive answer, mh\ ge/noito, “may it not come to be (so) [i.e. by no means, God forbid]!” But, if the Law is not identical with sin, how are we to understand the close relationship between the Law and sin, such as he describes throughout Galatians and here in Romans, to the point of using “under the Law” and “under sin” as nearly synonymous expressions? This is what he attempts to explain and expound in vv. 7ff. I divide the passage into three sections, or scenes, each of which describes a distinctive situation involving human beings (represented by Paul in the first person) in relation to the Law:

  • Rom 7:7-12—Scene 1: Introduction of the Law (Torah) over humankind
    • V. 7a—Rhetorical Question: “Is the Law sin?” (may it not be!)
    • Vv. 7b-8—Answer/Explanation (main proposition): the Law brings about knowledge/awareness of sin (cf. Rom 3:20)
      • The command (v. 7b)—example from the Decalogue (Ex 20:17): “Do not set (your) heart upon…”
      • Sin “uses” the command (v. 8) to work/produce instances of “setting the heart upon” illicit/prohibited things
    • Vv. 8b-9—Expository transition:
      • apart from the Law (xwri\$ no/mou) sin is dead (nekra/), v. 8b
      • apart from the Law (xwri\$ no/mou) I was living (e&zwn), v. 9
    • Vv. 9-11—Rhetorical Illustration/Identification (e)gw de\, “but I…”):
      • Sin (already present) comes up to life (in the human being) with the command (v. 9)
      • The command leads to death, not life (v. 10)
      • Sin acts (deceptively) through the command, to kill (v. 11)
    • V. 12—Expository transition (statement regarding the Law):
      • The command is holy, just and good…(how then, does it lead to sin and death?)
  • Rom 7:13-20—Scene 2: Humankind under the Law (of God)
    • V. 13a—Rhetorical Question: “Did the thing that is good come to be death for me?” (may it not be!)
    • Vv. 13b—Answer/Explanation (secondary proposition): the Law makes sin to “shine forth”, i.e., become apparent/manifest
      • Action: The Law works/produces death through the command
      • Purpose: So that Sin would come to be (seen for what it is)—i.e. completely sinful
        —Manifestation of the power of Sin: flesh is in bondage to it (v. 14)
    • Vv. 14-20—Rhetorical Illustration/Identification (e)gw de\, “but I…”):
      Contrast/conflict: The Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly—Spirit vs. Flesh (cf. Gal 5:16-25)
      • I work (“under sin”):
        —lacking true knowledge: “I do not know” (v. 15)
        —the will is trapped between: the Law (good, v. 16) and sin in the flesh (evil, b. 17)
        —the will is weakened by sinful flesh (v. 18)
        —the person does the opposite of the will (v. 19)
      • It is the power of sin working in me (v. 20)
  • Rom 7:21-25—Scene 3 (Illustration): Humanity subject to the Law (of God) and the Law (of Sin)
    • V. 21—Statement of two contradictory laws (Rhetorical Illustration/Identification: “I find… in me”)
    • V. 22—The Law of God: in the “inner man”
    • V. 23—The Law of Sin: in the (outer) members (i.e., bodily parts, the “flesh”)
    • V. 24—Rhetorical Question: “who will rescue me from this body of death?”
      —and the Answer (implied), v. 25a: “…God through Jesus Christ our Lord”
    • V. 25b—Concluding summary statement (of the two contradictory laws):
      • me\n (on the one hand): “with the mind I am a slave to the Law of God”
      • de\ (on the other hand): “with the flesh (I am a slave) to the Law of Sin”

Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 7:7-25

As the above outline should make clear, Romans 7:7-25 is a dense network of arguments and illustrations, images and symbols, drawing upon nearly everything that Paul has said thus far in Romans about the Law (and Sin). It is the power of his personalized (first person) presentation that makes his exposition so memorable. As the history of exegesis and interpretation amply shows, believers (i.e. those hearing and reading Romans) were likewise able to identify themselves with the “I” in the passage—which was doubtless Paul’s aim and intent in using such a literary device. But what do these verses say specifically regarding Paul’s view of the Law? To begin with, there are two fundamental beliefs or propositions which he expresses throughout the passage:

    1. The Law (Torah) itself is not sinful, nor to be identified with sin (v. 7)—rather, it is holy, just and good (v. 12), and is spiritual (v. 14), reflecting the will of God (the Law of God, in the wider sense).
    2. Though he does not state it specifically here until verse 14, by comparison with the rest of Romans (and Galatians), it is clear that, in his view, human beings were in slavery and bondage to Sin (“under sin”) even before the introduction of the Torah.

With these two ideas in mind, it is possible to summarize some key points related to the overall exposition in vv. 7-25:

  • The main purpose of the Law is twofold: (1) to bring about knowledge and awareness of sin (v. 7, cf. also 3:20), and (2) to make sin itself appear in its true (sinful) nature (v. 13). These are two sides of the same coin—one emphasizes human perception and experience, the other emphasizes the power and presence of sin itself. How does this happen?
  • Revelation of sin comes through the command (e)ntolh/) of God as expressed in the Torah—particularly, as Paul illustrates here (vv. 7-8), through the fundamental ethical-moral commands, which would tend to be shared by most non-Israelite/Jewish peoples as well. Until there is a specific injunction or prohibition which is to be obeyed or followed, sin is “dead”—that is, it possesses no conceptual or experiential reality for human beings. With the introduction of the command, sin literally “comes up to life” (v. 9).
  • Sin holds power over human beings (their flesh), but it does not lead to death until the command is violated (cf. Gen 3:3, 11, 22). As in the Genesis narrative, death is to be understood in the normal sense of physical death, and not as some kind of “spiritual death”—it is the body that dies or is dead as a result of sin (Rom 8:10f).
  • There are several aspects to Paul’s view of death that come as the result of sin: (1) as a future fate and judgment, (2) as a condition or judgment realized already in the present, and (3) as an active power (along with Sin) at work in the world (and the flesh).
  • Sin enslaves human beings externally in the surrounding world (Rom 5:12ff), but also, more notably, internally in the “flesh”. The power of sin dwells and works in the flesh, specifically the body and its parts.
  • The human will is conflicted and torn between the power of sin in the flesh and the mind or “conscience” which recognizes the command (the Law of God).
  • The “Law of God” is a wider concept than the Torah, as it relates to the “inner man”, the human mind and/or conscience. As such, it applies even to Gentiles who do not have the Torah (cf. Rom 2:12-16, 26-28). In this regard, Paul refers principally to the fundamental ethical/moral aspects of the Law; he never attempts to make a similar connection with the ritual/ceremonial aspects of the Law.

It is fair to assume that the people represented by Paul’s “I” in Rom 7:7-25 primarily represent believers prior to coming to faith in Christ. At any rate, they should be distinguished from the situation in Rom 1:21ff—there, human beings have fallen into idolatry and immorality, and God gives them over to even greater wickedness; here, by contrast, human beings are struggling with their conscience, wishing to live in an upright manner according to the Law of God, but unable to accomplish this because of the power of sin and the weakness of the flesh. One should consider the situation in Rom 7:7-25 as that of the “righteous” (Jew and Gentile alike), in the conventional/traditional religious and ethical sense, who wish to be faithful to the Law and to do good—but even they are enslaved by the power of sin. The Law reveals and makes manifest the reality of this bondage; the only hope of rescue from it comes through the work of God in Christ (v. 25).