Sin and death under the Law (Rom 2: 12; 5:20; 7:14-15)

ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον (2:12) describes Jews who commit sin under the Law. A similar expression is repeated in ἐν τῷ νόμῳ | (3:19). “…Under the Law” in 3:19 is understood with different nuances by commentators such as referring to living in subjection to the Law (Schreiner, 1998; Barrett, 1991; Moo, 1996), the Jews who know the scripture (Cranfield, 1975), the authority of the Law speaking to both the Jews and the Gentiles (Fitzmyer, 1993) or being directed by the Law. Rom 2:12 explicitly distinguishes two groups of people based on possession of the Law. In 3:2, Jews are entrusted with τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ. Therefore, ἐν τῷ νόμῳ in 2:12 and 3:19 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ refer to the Jews who live under the stipulation of the Law.

Paul insists that although the Jews possess the Law and boast in the Law, like the Gentiles, they are under sin (ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν) (3:9). The Law speaks to those who are under the Law (3:19). The Law witnesses against the sin of the Jews, that they are ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν (3:9). The expression ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν means “under the control of’ sin (LN) or under the power of sin (Jewett, 2007:259) or “dominion of sin” (Barrett, 1991).

63

Kaye (1979:137), however, opposes the idea of sin as power arguing that sin throughout Romans is a sinful act. But his contention is dismissed particularly because Paul’s understanding of sin goes beyond Jewish traditional understanding of transgression of commandments (Jewett, 2007:259). Paul’s insistence that sin exists apart fromthe Law (2:12; 5:13-14) and his description of it with terms conveying dominion and subjugation such as reigning and enslavement (5:21; 6:6; 6:12, 14; 7:14) evidence that ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν is sin as dominion of “irresistible coercive power” (Jewett, 2007:377).

Insofar as Jews are ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν, Paul argues in 5:20 that the giving of the Law to the Jews did not break the power of sin, rather it aggravated transgression because the Jews’ disobedience to the commandments is not out of ignorance (2:17). The word παρεισέρχομαι (slipped in, encroached) (5:20) has a negative connotation. Jewett ( 2007:387) contends that the derogatory sense of the word must not be softened. Contrary to Jewett, many understood the word to mean “alongside” or “in addition to” (Meyer, 1884:276; Cranfield, 1975:292; Dunn, 1988a:286). So also, the interpretation varies: it is the Law’s parenthetic dispensation (Sanday & Headlam, 1902), it does not represent the whole purpose of the Law (Murray, 1959), and it relativizes the importance of the Law in salvation history (Moo, 1996; Schreiner, 1998:295). Disturbingly, Paul aggravates the negative connotation claiming that the Law came in to increase trespasses. But it is not the increase of legalism, against Leenhardt (1961:150). Nor is it subjective consciousness of sin (pace Morris, 1988:241), but it is the concrete increase of breaking specific commandments of God in Israel.

Paul elaborates on 5:20 through a detailed analysis of the relationship of sin and the Law in 7:5 and 7:7- 25. The Law is neither sin nor the cause of death (7:1, 13). But Paul argues that sin took the opportunity of the presence of the Law in Israel. In 7:8, the place of the phrase διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς is debated. Some take it with κατειργάσατο (Cranfield, 1975:350; Dunn, 1988a:380; Lambrecht, 1992:45–46) whereas others take it with ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα (Theissen, 1987:225; Moo, 1991:460; Schreiner, 1998:367; Jewett, 2007:449). The latter seems to be more plausible not least because 7:10 states that the purpose of the Law is to produce life, but it produced the opposite. And γάρ in 7:11 introduces the explicit reason: sin took the opportunity through the commandment.

One of the key words that unlock Paul’s analysis of the role of the Law in increasing transgression, is ἀφορμή. The word refers to “the “base of operation,” or “bridgehead,” required for successful military operations” (Moo, 1996:435). LN (22.46) defines it as “a set of favorable circumstances for a particular activity or endeavor.” The term was first used in “Greek orators in the context of trade, agriculture, and war” (Jewett, 2007:449). Paul also used it in other places 2 Cor 5:12; 11:12; Gal 5:13. The opportunity

64

is not bad per se but Paul contends that the coming of the Law created a favourable bridgehead for sin to war against those who are under the Law.

What precisely is this favourable operation base for sin? Sin probably takes advantage of two favourable conditions: the nature of the Law and the condition of those under the Law. Räisänen (1983:143) asks whether 7:14 is a consequence or a reason for the experience described in 7:7-11. He opts for the latter particularly because γὰρ forcefully gives reason for the experience described in 7:7-11. Paul compares those who are under the Law with the nature of the Law in 7:14 and concludes that the realm where the Jews attempt to obey the Law and the realm of the Law are different. The Jews are in the realm of the flesh and are under sin while the Law is spiritual, holy and righteous. Sin dwells in Jews, and enslaved them, and nothing good dwells in them and they are of the flesh (7:17-18). Knowledge of the Law (2:17- 24) created a positive desire for the good and hatred for the evil (7:15, 18, 19) and revealed the consequence of doing good and breaking the Law. On top of this, the Law is diametrically opposite to the character of sin. It is holy, good, just, and spiritual. Any intent and action that does not comply with its character ignites wrath (4:15) or judgement or death (alienation from God). Contrary to the Law, sin has the power of deception (7:13) with its sinful desires and works in the members (7:5). Such opposing states created the opportunity for sin to ignite the wrath of God against the Jews by warring against the good will and delight they have for the Law and defeating them through deception. The Law was powerless to deliver and to give life because of the state of the Jews (7:5; 8:3).

For instance, the main thrust of 2:17-23 reveals that disobedience to the Law dishonours God (2:23), and by implication obedience to the Law honours God. Rom 2: 17-24 is no tabout the judgement of the Jews and the denial of their privilege as people of God (Das, 2001:184). Nor does it argue that the Jews used the Law as a way to salvation. Wright (1996:139–141) thinks that Paul is castigating the Jews for using the Law as a covenant badge by which they exclude others. Although Wright is correct if the broader picture of salvation history reading is kept in mind, the particular text does not say anything about excluding other Gentiles. Rather it contends that although the Jews depend on the Law, they broke it and as a result, the name of God is dishonoured among the Gentiles. Therefore, living under the Law produced more transgression (conscious violation of specific Law) (5:20) and dishonours God’s name because the Jews received the Law while they were in the realm of the reign of sin.

65