Cungte's Thesis

The Significance of No,moj in Romans in Relation to Justification by Faith
Cung Hnin
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1
The Different Concepts On The No,moj Throughout The Centuries
1.1. Law in the Ancient Near East
1.2. Law in the Old Testament
1.3. Νοµοσ in the New Testament
1.3.1. Jesus and the Νοµοσ in the Gospels
1.3.2. The No,moj in other New Testament Writings
Chapter 2
Paul and His Letter to the Romans: An Introduction
2.1. Romans within the Context of Paul’s Life and work: The Authorship, Date and
Place of Origin.
2.2. The Origin and Character of the Christian Community in Rome: The Recipients.
2.3. The Occasion and the Purpose of the Letter
2.4 The Literary Form of Romans
2.5. The Integrity and Theological Coherence of Romans
Chapter 3
The Significance Of No,moj In Paul’s Letter To The Romans In Relation To
His Teaching On Justification By Faith: An Exegetical Analysis.
3.1 The Meaning and Usages of No,moj
3.1.1. The Lexical Meaning of No,moj
3.1.2. The Various usages and Meanings of No,moj in Paul:
3.1.2.1. Articular and Anarthrous uses of Nomoj
3.1.2.2. Prepositional Phrases with No,moj
1
Cung Hnin
SECTION I
3.2. Rom. 2:1-29: Jews, with Law and Circumcision, Are Accountable for Sin
3.2.1. Introduction
3.2.2. Exegetical Analysis
3.2.2.1. The Issues (Rom. 2:1-11)
3.2.2.2. Paul’s Response
3.2.2.2.1. Possession of Law No Safeguard (2:12-16)
3.2.2.2.2. Favoured Status No Security (2: 17-24)
3.2.2.2.3. Circumcision No Guarantee (2:25-29)
3.2.3. Summary
SECTION II
3.3. Rom. 3:21- 4:25: Justification By Faith, Not By Law:-
3.3.1. Introduction
3.3.2. Exegetical analysis
3.3.2.1. The Issue
3.3.2.2.1. By Faith in Christ Jesus, Apart from the Law (3:21-26)
3.3.2.2.2. By Faith Alone (3:27-30)
3.3.2.2.3. Justification by Faith Establishes the Law (3:31)
3.3.2.2.4. By Faith alone: Elaboration with Respect to Abraham (4:13-22)
3.3.3. Summary
Section III
3.4. Rom. 7:1-25: Freedom from Bondage to the Law:
3.4.1. Introduction
2
Cung Hnin
3.3.2. Exegetical Analysis
3.3.2.1. The Issue
3.4.2.2. Released from the Law, Joined to Christ (7:1-6)
3.4.2.2.2. The Law, However, Is Holy, Just and Good (7:7-13)
3.3.3. Summary
Chapter 4.
Significance of No,moj in Relation to Justification By Faith
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Paul’s Teaching on Justification
4.3. The Significance of No,moj in Relation to Justification By Faith
4.4. Conclusion
Bibliography
3
Cung Hnin
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Was Paul consistent at all in his usage of no,moj in his letters especially in
Romans? Or id Paul undergo a development in his understanding of the no,moj?
These questions are not new and many Pauline scholars have attempted to answer in
their own time, situation and convenience, with no single and final solution which
won universal acceptance, because Paul’s treatment to the no,moj seems to be so
confusing in itself and sometimes seems to contradict himself. For instance, he on the
one hand, seems to negate the law from any role in his teaching on justification in
favour of faith, “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been
disclosed...” (3:21), “… a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by
the law” (3:28) and so on, but he on the other hand seems to negate what he had said,
“… we established the law” (3:31) and “… the law is holy, and the commandment is
holy, just and good” (7:12). So Paul seems to be so unclear in his treatment to the law.
This kind of position held by Paul, therefore, raise the following fundamental
questions: Why does Paul, the Pharisee, the ardent adherent and observer of the law,
has to teach on the law as he does? Why does he give such important a place to law in
his teaching in relation to justification? Does he mean to teach that his great thesis of
justification by faith makes the law void and obsolete? Is he antinomian or anti-
Jewish maker as he is often branded? Does the law have any value and significance in
the new epoch (Faith in Christ Era)?
The Purpose of the Study:
The main purpose of this study is therefore an attempt to penetrate into the
mind of St. Paul for better understanding of his stance on the no,moj in relation to
his teaching on justification by faith especially from his epistle to Romans. The
4
Cung Hnin
second purpose is to bridge his two-sided views on the law which seems to contradict
one another.
Importance of the Study
The present study is important for a better understanding of Paul’s teaching on

the law: the nature, role and significance in relation to his teaching on justification by
faith and secondly, this study is in turn important to understand better of Pauline
theology: especially of Soteriology and Christology.
Scope and Limitation
The scope of this study is limited to no,moj as understood by Paul and

limiting the research only to the selected passages (Rom. 2:1-29; 3:21-31; 4:13-22;
7:1-25) in Paul’s letter to the Romans, since it is impossible to deal with all his
epistles.
Research Methodology
The methodology applied in this research is literary and exegetical analysis, on

the selected passages from Romans (Rom. 2:1-29; 3:21-31; 4:13-22; 7:1-25) which is
supplemented by historical and critical study of the background. Historical critical
method is also applied. This study is issue based exegesis on selected passages from
Romans.
Structure of the Research
The first chapter is a preparation for the main studies which deals with the diverse
concepts on the no,moj in different period of times and the second chapter also is
the preparation for exegesis for better understanding of the context of writing of the
5
Cung Hnin
epistle. The third chapter, which is also the main part of the present study, deals with
exegetical analysis on aforementioned passages.
Chapter 1
THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS ON THE NO,MOS THROUGHOUT THE

CENTURIES
Introduction: -
The word “Law”1 is the standard translation of the Greek word ‘no,moj’2 and
‘no,moj’ belongs etymologically to ‘νemw’, meaning, “to allot” and thus has the
sense of “what is proper”, “what is assigned to someone”.3 It is interesting to note that
the concepts on the law explicitly vary from people to people, community to
community, place to place and centuries to centuries. There was a time when the law
is connected to the Supreme Being, or god and goddesses, and sometimes is regarded
as divine regulations and there were times, it is purely connected to earthy rules and
legislations. Such is the fact that to have a better understanding on the law, attempt is
made in this chapter to analyse and present the different concepts on the law
throughout the centuries.
1.1. Law in the Ancient Near East: -
Comparison of the Old Testament law collections with similar materials, i.e.,
Ancient Near Eastern law, reveals that the law is not peculiar only to Israel alone but
it is a common phenomenon to all the people of the Ancient Near East. Archaeology
has been significantly more successful in providing knowledge about law in non-
Israelite societies, for particularly for those ancient communities of people who wrote
1
The meaning of the law will be dealt separately and exhaustively in the proceeding chapter.
2
D.J. Moo, “Law I: Gospels” in The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Daniel G. Reid
(Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 675. Hereafter cited as D.J. Moo, “Law I: Gospels”, IVP DNT…,
3
Gutbrod, “No,moj” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV edited by Gerhard Kitted
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969), 1023. Hereafter cited as Gutbrod, “No,moj
” TDNT, IV…,
6
Cung Hnin
their records on clay tablets in cuneiform scripts. These ancient cultures, viz., the
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites have yielded collections of their laws
as well as contemporary public and private documents describing a full range of legal
and economic activities.4 It is the fact that the earliest formulations of law were made
by the Sumerians, a very intelligent and creative people who were responsible for the
world’s first high culture. The Sumerians greatly emphasized law and order in society
and in the middle of the third millennium B.C; they began to draw up legislation. 5 In
the later period such formulations were common in the rest of the worlds of ANE. The
major law collections of the ANE are the Codes of Urnammu (CU, see ANET, 523-
25), Lipit Ishtar (LI, see ANET, 159-61) and Hammurabi (CH, see ANET, 163-80);
the Laws of Eshnunna (LE, see ANET, 161-63); the Middle Assyrians Laws (AL, see
ANET, 180-88); and the Hittite Laws (HL, see ANET, 188-97).6
The comparative study of these ANE laws and the biblical laws helps us to
comprehend that many legal practices and problems described in the Bible also appear
in the non-biblical ANE traditions. While there are, to be sure, cultural differences
between these ancient societies, there are also similarities.7 Source critics are saying
that the ANE laws have more to say than that of Ancient Israel and found that the
Bible, for instance, has no laws dealing with craftsmen, professions, or merchants.
Some of these omissions are explained by the observation that ancient Israelites
society was not as developed as that of its neighbours.8 There are so many instances,
which tell us that there are similarities and parallelism between the laws of ANE and
the biblical laws. For instance, the laws are so close that the offences and penalties are
described in identical fashion. This is so in laws about false witness (Ex. 23:1-3; Deut.
19:16-20; Hammurabi Laws 1, 2, 3), kidnapping (Ex. 21:16; Hammurabi Laws 14)
4
Samuel Greengus, “Law” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary V.4, edited by David Noel Freedman (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 242. Hereafter cited as Samuel Greengus, “Law,” ABD, V.4,…,
5
R.K. Harrison, “Law in the Old Testament” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, V.III,
edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1986), 77.
6
Samuel Greengus, “Law,” ABD, V.4., 242.
7
Ibid., 243.
8
S. Greengus, “Law in the O.T” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible edited by Keith Crim
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), 532.
7
Cung Hnin
and the responsibilities for borrowed animals (Ex. 22:14-15; Hittite Laws 75)9 and so
on. Identical or near-identical formulations are also found in cases of sexual relation
with a stepmother in the lifetime of the father (Lev. 18:8; 20:11; Hittite Laws 190),
sexual relations with daughter-in-law (Lev. 18:15; Hammurabi Laws 155) and so on.
There are other instances where the laws are so close but not identical. E.g. It is so in
the cases involving debt slavery (Ex. 21:22-24; Ur- Nammu Laws 4) 10. So we come to
assure that there are a number of cases where the biblical laws and pagan laws both
address the same problems but the respective legal treatments are different. So in this
sense, the ancient Israelites may be indebted to their pagan neighbours in the
collection of the laws and vice versa.
Regarding the authority and the law in ANE, it is interesting to note that the
king as part of his duty of governance upholds the laws. The king is responsible for
ruling the people in accordance with principles of justice and equality and from time
to time he issues public decrees. But the king, however, is not the primary author or
originator of the Law.11 So also the administration of justice, however, did not fall
solely on the king. Local courts of village elders, councils, heard cases or residential
districts and cases also came before courts convened under the jurisdiction of
provincial civil and military officials. Temple priests were at times also judges.12
So we can come to the understanding as a result of the above study that there
are so many instances where the biblical laws also appear in the pagan’s laws at times
in identical or near identical forms and at another times very close yet not identical
and yet the understanding upon them and the observance are varies to a certain extent.
So the express purpose of the law in the Old Testament was to create a ‘kingdom of
priest and a holy nation’ (Ex.19: 6) whereas in ANE, the laws dwells on the political
and economic benefits that law brings – justice, peace, prosperity and good
9
Ibid., 533.
10
Ibid., 533-34.
11
Samuel Greengus, “Law,” ABD, V.4., 244.
12
Ibid.,244.
8
Cung Hnin
government.13 So the laws, in general, in Old Testament are religious in nature

whereas the laws in ANE are secular in nature.
1.2. Law in the Old Testament: -
The concept or understanding on the law in the Old Testament itself is not
unanimous but different from era to era. So in this section, we will highlight briefly
the different concepts and understanding of the law during different period of time in
the Old Testament era.
1.2.1. The Law in Ancient Israel: -
The laws in ancient Israel have their place in the doctrine of the covenant.14
Yahweh has chosen Israel as his people, and Israel has acknowledged Yahweh as it
God. This fundamental Old Testament principle is the direct basis of these laws. They
express the claim of Yahweh to dominion over the whole life of these people, which
belongs to him in virtue of his election.
The laws are not regarded, then as a fair judgment of human interest, which is
then divinely sanctioned. It is not, in particular, the achievement, which establishes
the divine relationship. The laws are rather, in the strictest sense, the requirements of
the God to whom Israel belongs because he has revealed himself to be the God of his
people. The motive for keeping this law is simply that of obedience.15 The law is then
designed to bind the people and the individual to Yahweh. Hence the commandment:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The validity of the commandments
resides in the underlying will of the covenant God. Hence the law seeks to regulate
the relation of the covenant people and the individual to the covenant God and to the
13
T. R. Schreiner, “Law” in New Bible Dictionary edited by J.D. Douglas (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press,
1997), 674.
14
Gutbrod, “Nomoj ,” TDNT, IV., 1036, citing W. Eichrodt Theol. d. AT, I2 (1939), 26ff.
15
Ibid.,1036.
9
Cung Hnin
member of the people belonging to this God, to regulate it on the basis of the election
of this people by this God, and by the avoidance of things, which might destroy or
disrupt the relation.16
1.2.2. The Attitude of the Prophets towards the Law: -
Prophetic preaching rests on a new encounter with God, but not on a new idea
of God. This enables us to understand the attitude of the prophets towards the law.
They do not think that they have to tell the people what God requires for the first time.
Their preaching of repentance presupposes that man has been told already what is
good and what the Lord his God requires of him (Mic. 6: 8). The prophets often
formulate the divine will in a new way. They often bring Old Testament in the new
features but never pose unknown demands. Indeed, prophetic preaching recognizes
not merely the law but also its basis. Israel is the divinely chosen people (Am. 2:9;
3:2; Is. 1:2; Hos. 8:13f.). Violation of the law is apostasy from Yahweh (Is. 1:27ff.).
The prophets always condemn infringements of the commandments (Am. 5: 7,10ff.;
Jer. 7:9). Direct reference to the formulated laws, however, e.g. the Decalogue, is
comparatively rare (Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9). Even when it occurs, it carries no special
emphasis.
The prophets were confronted by the fact that appeals to the law and its letter
could be accompanied by the refusal of true obedience and a real lack of love for
one’s neighbour (Am. 2: 6; Jer. 8:8). Thus they radicalise the law, as when Amos
simply says, “Hate the evil, and love the good” (Am. 5:15). This does not necessarily
mean that they abandon the moral demands of the laws. Secondly, in the face of their
direct encounter with God, the prophets could no longer expect salvation from the
legal order of life. A new possibility arises for Israel only in a free, miraculous and
creative act of God for which the prophets look forward. Thus the prophetic attitude
16
Ibid., 1037-38.
10
Cung Hnin
towards the law, with its simultaneous affirmation and criticism and abolition, can be
understood only in terms of direct apprehension by the holiness of God.17
1.2.3. The Deuteronomic Understanding of the Law: -
Deuteronomy is Greek for ‘Second Law’ and it is a series of sermons by

Moses about the law, urging Israel to keep the law if they want to prosper in the land
they are about to enter.18 The final law collection is the law of Deuteronomy and it
develops the concept of the law and tora (hrt))) to the extent of providing the most
mature exposition of law found in the Old Testament. Secondly, the Deuteronomy is
especially concerned with the motivation necessary to keep the laws. Thirdly, law in
Deuteronomy is closely linked with covenantal renewal and lastly, the Deuteronomy
has attained the fixed and authoritative form.19
Deuteronomy contains a definite view of the law of Yahweh, which is

consistently worked out on the basis and in development of ancient legal material.
The distinctive feature of this view is the urgency with which the requirement is
grounded in the act by which God made Israel his people. Deuteronomy emphasizes
that the religious and national existence of the people of Israel rests solely and simply
in the covenant sworn to the fathers (4:32ff; 7:8,12ff. etc.). Hence one of the main
tasks of the law is to safeguard the one link between Israel and this God. Another
distinctive feature of Deuteronomic law is the great earnestness with which it seeks to
impart the blessing of the relation with God to individual member of the people. A
very strong emphasis is laid on the just allotment of duties and especially rights to all
members of God’s people, so that none shall be deprived of God’s blessing in this
life.20
17
Ibid., 1039-40.
18
G.J. Wenham, “Law” in New Dictionary of the Bible edited by J.D. Douglas (Illinois: Inter Varsity
Press, 1997), 673.
19
M. J. Selman, “Law” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond
Alexander and David W. Baker (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 503.
20
Gutbrod, “Nomoj ,” TDNT, IV., 1040.
11
Cung Hnin
1.2.4. The Law in the Post-Exilic Period: -
The exile brought a major development in the attitude of Israel towards the
law, and consequently in the understanding of the law. The threat of the prophets had
been cried out. Israel had come under the judgment of Yahweh because of its
disobedience to him. After the return, its decisive concern was to do the will of God.
Israel had to obey God’s law to live. The exile had made this plain.
Observing the law does not create the relation to God; it keeps the people in
this continuing relation. The transition to the later view of the law, whereby
observance establishes the relation to God, is fluid. The law takes on increasingly
independent significance as regards to the relation to God. Praise to God’s deeds in
relation to the fathers is increasingly accompanied by independent praise of the law as
the means, which God has given the people to keep itself in his grace.21
The historical presentation according to Deuteronomy and Chronicles is an

important stage in the progress of the law towards a key position in the religious
world of Judaism.22 This presentation presupposes a legal norm. Saul was rejected
because he violates the commandments of God. All Israel’s kings are judged
according to the law. The Davidic kingship is guaranteed by God’s promise, but
concretely it depends on observance of the law (e.g. 2Ch. 27f.). Secondly, the
mounting significance of the law is seen in the fact that the law becomes increasingly
the basis of the whole life of the community. Bond to the law, the people of Israel
becomes a religious community centred in the law. Thirdly, there is a change in the
cultus too. That worship should be according to the law becomes so overwhelmingly
important that finally it is understood solely, or at least primarily, as a fulfilment of
21
Ibid., 1043.
Gutbrod, “No,moj ,” TDNT, IV., 1043, citing G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbid des Chronitischen
22
Werks (1930).
12
Cung Hnin
the law. Finally, the new position of the law may be seen in the fact that a new class,
i.e., that of the Scribes, takes over the religious leadership of the people (Ezr. 7:10).23
1.3. Νοµοσ in the New Testament: -
What impact did the coming of Jesus, the Messiah and the establishments through him
of the Kingdom of God have on the authority and applicability of the Mosaic Law?
The question is at the heart of the Gospels. It played a critical role in Jesus’ disputes
with various Jewish groups especially with the Pharisaic sects.24 Jesus, living in the
overlap between the old covenant and the new, is generally obedient to the Mosaic
Law, but at the same time he makes clear that he has sovereign right to interpret and
to set aside that law.25 On this basis he criticizes a casuistic literal interpretation of the
law and the new concept on the no,moj was dawn, aversion to the traditional way of
interpretation and observance of the Mosaic Law. Jesus did not put an end to Mosaic
Law but at least a new paradigm has come with his coming. In this section, we will
deal with the concept of no,moj in the life and ministry of Jesus as presented the
evangelists and by the other New Testament writers as briefly as follows.
1.3.1. Jesus and the Νοµοσ in the Gospels: -
The word νοµοσ occurs thirty-one times in the Gospels, always in a singular,
and with two possible exceptions- both in John 19:7- the word denotes the body of
commandments given by God to the people of Israel through Moses. Jesus’ attitude on
the law is poles apart from those of the time. He gave new meaning in the νοµοσ, and
23
Gutbrod, “No,moj,” TDNT, IV., 1043-44.
24
The Pharisees are a Jewish sect who saw themselves, though laymen, as the kingdom of priest,
observing the legislation relevant to the priest on Temple duty. They are a conservative observers and
interpreters of the Mosaic Law. Their main teaching on the law is that the only way to receive salvation
is that of observance of the Mosaic Laws, and there is no other ways and means. (J.D. Douglas, NDB.,
914-15).
25
D. J. Moo, “Law” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight
(Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 450. Hereafter cited as D.J. Moo, “Law”, DJG.,…,
13
Cung Hnin
criticizes casuistic literal interpretation that denied the very heart and purpose of the
law. It is in the dual command to love God and neighbours that Jesus found the heart
of the nomoj and he used these basic demands to interpret and apply the no,moj in
accordance with its author’s intention. But Jesus was not simply a great expositor of
the law but claim to be the Lord of the Law itself. As Messiah and Son of God, Jesus
stands superior to the law. Nevertheless, Jesus never attacks the law and indeed,
asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus
fulfilled, that the law retains its validity. These things the Gospel writers presented
with considerable differences in clarity and emphasis. Mark highlights Jesus’
abrogation of the ritual aspects of the law. Matthew addressing to the Jews, presents
how Jesus both endorse the law and surpasses it. Luke commending the piety of those
who follow the law while showing that the continuing validity of the law lies mainly
in its prophetic aspects. And John’s stance is more polemical as he puts Jesus and his
claims on a collision course with the law and its institutions.26
In the proclamation of Jesus according to the Gospels affirmation and

recognition of the no,moj are inextricably interwoven with negation and criticism.
There is no data on which to attempt a chronological listing of the relevant sayings.
We must try, then, to understand the negation and affirmation of the law in their
mutual relationship.27
1.3.1.1. Jesus’ Negation of the No,moj : −
Τhe essential and basic negation of the no,moj in Jesus consists in the fact
that he deposes it from its position of mediation. What determines man’s relation to
God is no longer the law and man’s relation to it. This decisive position is now
occupied by the word of Jesus, indeed, by Jesus himself. Man finds his relation to
God in the relation to Jesus, to the lordship of God, which has invaded the world in
26
Ibid., 450-51.
27
Gutbrod, “No,moj ,” TDNT, IV., 1060.
14
Cung Hnin
him.28 So Jesus removed the law from its mediatorial position and opened up
immediate access to God.29
Through the coming of Jesus, the old divine dispensation came to an end, and
a new one arrived where the Kingdom of God comes directly among men (cf. Mt.
17:10-13; Jn. 1:21; Lk. 1:17). Thus the preaching and teaching of the prophets and the
law reaches its – goal (telos) and comes to an end. The parallel passage in Luke 16: 16
makes a point of inserting these words of Jesus into the whole scheme of salvation
history: “Law and prophets until John…”30 and the Kingdom of God is proclaimed
directly through Jesus but no longer through the prophets and laws.
Similarly, in the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:21-48), Jesus
put an end to all self-satisfaction at having kept individual commandments of the
no,moj (vv. 20, 46). He made the unprecedented claim that what was said in the
no,moj to men of old (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) is now made out of date once and
for all by himself: “but I say unto you…” (vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 38, 44).31 Jesus,
however, makes it very clear that his claim was not levelled against the law (Mt. 5:17-
19), but against man’s self-righteous attitude to the law (vv. 19-20). He set himself to
fulfil in detail the law’s demand for a life of utter obedience to God (v. 17: cf. 3:15) as
he had done already from his circumcision onward, and continued to do until his
death on the cross.32
So by the coming of Jesus, the law’s position was also shifted. What finally
separates man from God is not transgression of negation of the law (Mt. 21:28ff.). In
essence the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32ff.
28
Ibid., 1060.
29
This idea is found especially in the group of parables in Luke 15; 18:9-27; and many other synoptic
passages.
30
H.H. Esser, “No,moj” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology V.2 edited by
Colin Brown (Michigan: The Paternoster Press, 1986), 443. Hereafter cited as H.H. Esser, “No,moj”,
NIDNTT, V.2……
31
Ibid., 443.
32
Ibid., 443.
15
Cung Hnin
Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man, but

not by the law. Similarly the parables collected in Mk.2 are possible
only if the law no longer plays a decisive role between God and man,
and conduct either in accordance with or in opposition to the law no
longer justifies or condemns a man definitely before God.33
The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13ff, the Beatitudes in Mt. 5:3ff, and
the sayings in Mt. 11:28ff, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these
words precisely to those who are so burdened under the law that they no longer came
any a,napausij. On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and
counts on God’s grace alone, the sentence is passed: “This man went down to his
house justified…”34(Lk. 18:14) – rather than on the man who can boast of his
observance of the law (cf. also Lk 17:7ff.). The Scribes and Pharisees close the
Kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because the will allow men to enter only by fulfilment
of the law which they themselves administer.35
So Jesus bases the relation of men to God on their relation to himself and to
the lordship of God, which comes in him, rather than on the law. His specific
invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that he firmly negates the
law in so far as it stands as a mediator between God and men. He firmly negates the
righteousness of the law. The person of Jesus himself forces the law out of its key
position.
1.3.1.2 Jesus’ Affirmation of the No,moj :−
33
Gutbrod, “No,moj ,” TDNT, IV., 1060.
34
Katebh ou[toj dedikaiw menoj eivj ton oivkon auvtou par εvkeinon.....
35
Gutbrod, “No,moj ,” TDNT, IV., 1060-61.
16
Cung Hnin
In terms of this new position and its implied negation of the law, however,
Jesus also affirms the law rightly understood. For obviously this deposition of the law
from its position of mediation is not meant to be a general repudiation of the law.36
The best known statement of Jesus’ affirmation of the law comes in Matthew
5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have not
come to abolish, but to fulfil them.” By this claim, Jesus made himself very clear that
he comes to this world as the fulfilment of the law. In Luke 16:16, Jesus announces
the fundamental shift in salvation history, but in the light of Luke 16:17 he cannot
mean that the significance of the Old Testament is terminated.37
Jesus’ affirmation of the law is also very apparent in his behaviour and it is not
surprising to note that he was generally obedient to the Law of Moses. He attends the
major feasts in Jerusalem; pay the half-shekel temple tax (Mt. 17:24-27), wears the
prescribed tassel on his robe (Mt. 9:20; cf. Num. 15:38-41) and whatever may be said
about his disciples’ behaviour or his teaching, never clearly violates the Sabbath. It is
only in the case of Jesus’ contact with unclean people in his healing ministry (e.g.
touching a leper [Mt. 8:3], [Lk. 5:13]) that he could be considered in violation of the
Law of Moses.38 However, all in those cases, Jesus did those not to abolish the law but
rather as a fulfilment of them. So in general his behaviour and lifestyle are in
accordance and harmony with the Mosaic Law.
It is also so plain in Mt. 5:18, that Christ explicitly reaffirmed the Old
Testament law: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” He also says that, “Unless
your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter
into the Kingdom of God” (v.20). Here he seems to be so negative to the law but he
36
Ibid., 1061.
37
D.J. Moo, “Law”, DJG., 456-57.
38
Ibid., 451-52.
17
Cung Hnin
rather taught that his disciples must surpass in the realm of moral conduct as those
who hope to be saved.39
In aforementioned verse, i.e., Mt. 5:17, the key word is to fulfil (πληρω).
Jesus’ affirmation and fulfilment is plain in the following areas. Jesus fulfils the law
(1) by confirming its validity (2) by adding to it (3) by extending its demands (4) by
bringing out its full, originally intended meaning and (5) by teaching the
eschatological will of God that the law anticipated.40
Jesus recognises the law when he acts as the one who forgives sins, i.e., which
he calls publican and sinners to fellowship with himself (Lk. 15). A plain judgment is
pronounced; He is dealing with the sick (Mk. 2:17), the lost and the victims of death
(Lk. 15:3ff). Thus Jesus validates the law by the judgment implied in his pardon.
Jesus coming brought forgiveness and the new relation to God is constituted. This
being so, the law is on the one side deposed from its position of mediation but on the
other side the judgment of the law and its demands are recognised to be valid. Indeed
they are a necessary presupposition.41
Jesus recognises the law to be God’s good will not only for himself but also
for others. To the question of right conduct he gives the answer: taj evnaolaj
oivdaj (Mk. 10:19). He does not accept as good any other will than the will of God
revealed in the law. Apart from this he does not champion any other goodness (Mk.
10:18; cf. also Lk. 10:25ff). And also there is a direct and positive relation between
the law on the one side and Jesus as the Christ on the other. True obedience is
rendered in discipleship. The rich young ruler will achieve perfect observance of the
law when he surrenders himself and follows Jesus (Mk. 10:17ff).
39
J.H. Gerstrer, “Law in the New Testament ” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, V.III,
edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1986), 90. Hereafter cited
as J.H. Gerstrer, “Law in the New Testament ”, ISBE.,….
40
D.J. Moo, “Law I: Gospels”,IVP DNT., 682.
41
Gutbrod, “No,moj ,” TDNT, IV., 1061-62.
18
Cung Hnin
Along with this direct affirmation of the law there is criticism, though in
reality this criticism serves only to confirm and establish the law, not to destroy it. The
first point in Jesus’ criticism is that the law can serve to protect man’s disobedience
against the claim of God. Keeping the individual commandments when there is no
readiness for full self-giving is not accepted as perfect obedience by Jesus (Mk.
10:21) and is criticised, in a sense in order to affirm the importance of full obedience
and observance of the laws.
Hereby the law is genuinely established and fulfilled by Christ, though it is

also clear that in its reconstruction by Jesus, the law is no longer understood as
something which man has to fulfil in the sense of earning thereby the justifying
sentence of God. On the contrary, fulfilment of the requirement presupposes the prior
divine sonship which arises in fellowship with Jesus and which consists essentially in
the forgiveness granted herewith.42
1.3.1.3. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the No,moj: -
It may thus be seen that this acknowledgement of the law, which consists of
both affirmation and criticism, is to be regarded primarily from two standpoints.
Firstly, it calls for full repentance, which acquires depth and concreteness from the
law’s requirements. Secondly, it exhibits true obedience, the new righteousness. Both
aspects are insolubly bound up with the fact that Jesus bases the relation between God
and man, not on fulfilment of the law, but on the new creative act of God.
Confrontation with God’s unconditional claim through the law, together with
recognition or condemnation by the newly understood law on the one side, and
liberation from the mediation of the law and its observance on the other, mutually
promote and control one another.43
42
Ibid., 1062-65.
43
Ibid., 1065.
19
Cung Hnin
So we can come to the conclusion that through the coming of Jesus, the law
and the prophets come to an end and the law was removed from its mediatorial
position, yet Jesus did not abolish the law but rather fulfilled its requirements.
1.3.2. The No,moj in other New Testament Writings: -
While the remainder of the New Testament is not so full in its treatment, it
seems to follow the pattern of teaching found in Christ and Paul44 generally.
Hebrews: The word “law” occurs fourteen times in this epistle and a great deal
of attention is given to the subject, but it is generally the law in its ceremonial and
typical aspects of that is in question. The author showed how the law is transcended
by the gospel (Heb. 2:2-4). It is the transcendent glory of the gospel dispensation
introduced by Christ and ascribed to him that shines throughout the epistle. He dealt
in Hebrews 7 and 8 with the law of the priesthood, showing that Christ’s priesthood is
more glorious than the Aaronnic priesthood under the law and not only surpasses but
supersedes it. He next dealt with the law of the sanctuary, considering the law of the
sacrifice (Heb. 9-10). He showed that Christ’s one, all perfect, eternal sacrifice
replaced the many imperfect temporary sacrifices offered under the law.45
James: In James, the relationship is between faith and works, not faith and the
law as in Paul. What has often been taken in James to be justification by works of law
versus justification by faith turns out to be a justification by works identical with
justification by faith (Jas. 2:18). He used Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son in
obedience to God as demonstrative evidence –by work – of faith. Abraham’s works
justified his faith but faith justifies Abraham himself. So in James the works of the
law is given prominence in justification by faith as the means in justification by faith
as the means of justifying faith.46
44
Pauline concept on the law will be dealt separately in the proceeding chapters.
45
J.H. Gerstrer, “Law in the New Testament”, ISBE., 91.
46
Ibid., 91.
20
Cung Hnin
Summary:
On the basis of the research made, and the findings as the result, on the
different concepts on the law throughout the centuries and we come to the conclusion
with a clear picture that the law is not peculiar to the Israelites alone but it is rather the
commonplace realities to all their neighbouring states. And so to say that their
neighbouring states were more advanced and constituted that they have more to say
on the laws than that of Israelites and the Ancient Israel are no doubt indebted to them
in their collection and institution of the biblical laws. However, the biblical laws in
one way or the other are unique because all the focuses are in the covenantal God,
Yahweh and are not merely the rules and legislations of the mundane rulers but they
have religious ground and significance in their observances. In the Old Testament
time, they hold the stage and are at the centre of worship and in their relationship to
God. However, since the post-exilic period, they lost their importance gradually. And
finally when Jesus Christ came to this world, the law came to an end in one way and it
was forcefully removed from its mediatorial position. As cited above, Jesus put the
law to an end on the one hand; however, on the other hand he did not abolish but
rather fulfilled it in his life and ministry. So from the time of Jesus onward, the
concepts on the authority of the law was wholly changed, and their observance of the
law was no longer the condition in their relationship with God, but their relationship
with Jesus rather is the condition and this view is shared by all of the New Testament
writers and is maintained throughout their writings with implicit variations and
emphasis.
Chapter 2
PAUL AND HIS LETTER TO THE ROMANS: AN INTRODUCTION
Introduction:
21
Cung Hnin
The epistle to the Romans is one of the classic documents of the Christian
faith, the theological epistle par excellence in the New Testament; the only other
comparable New Testament writing both in epistolary form and theological content
and it has been regarded as the queen of Pauline epistles because of its thorough
doctrinal and theological contents where he vividly expressed his views and
understanding on the gospel he preached and the faith he hold fast on it. Thomas
Draxe, the seventeenth century English Puritan, described Romans as “The
quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine,”47 which won the acceptance of many
of the theologians, commentators and lay people throughout the centuries. Martin
Luther, the Great Reformer put Romans as, “the purest Gospel.”48 So it is commonly
agreed that the epistle to the Romans is one of the best Christian writings which
influenced most people throughout the history of the Christian Church.49 However,
like every book in the New Testament, Romans is rooted in history and it is not a
systematic theology but a letter, written in specific circumstances and with specific
purposes. The message of Romans is, indeed, timeless; but to understand its message
aright, we must appreciate the specific context out of which Romans was written.50 So
in this chapter, we will deal with the context, circumstances, the occasions and the
purposes of the writing of the letter as follows.
2.1. Romans within the Context of Paul’s Life and work: The Authorship, Date
and Place of Origin.
47
Quoted in W. Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1072), 87, as
cited by Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans in The New international Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 1.
48
Luther, Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, p. 1522, as cited by Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans in The New international Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 1.
49
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 1. Hereafter cited as L.
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans.
50
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans in The New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 1. Here after
cited as Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans.
22
Cung Hnin
No doubt is today entertained regarding the author of this letter.51The letter

claims to have been written by the Apostle Paul (1:1), and no serious objection
appears ever to have been urged against this claim. The few who have objected have
not been able to convince many that their arguments have weight. The style and
contents are what we expect of Paul, and the tradition of the church has always
accepted this letter as a genuine work of the great apostle.52 As we shall see, there is
some dispute about the date on which he wrote the letter, though not much about its
place of origin. More important than statistics of date and place for our understanding
of the letter, however, are the background of the letter within the life and life-work of
Paul and the point of life and life-work at which he wrote.53 The following discussions
are of particular importance to understand the letter at best.
“Paul as a Jew” is the fact that is too important to ignore if at all we want to
understand his letter for it is this background that influences the totality of his
thoughts, writings and preaching. He was born and brought up a Jew. He never ceased
to be a Jew. Paul’s own self-testimony (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), being proud of being a
Jew, can not be set aside,54 to understand his thoughts. Paul seems to be boasting to be
a Jew (Acts 21:39; 22:3), an Israelites (2 Cor. 11:22; Rom. 11:1), a Hebrew, born of
Hebrew (Acts. 23:6; Phil. 3:6), a Pharisee (Acts 26:5; Gal. 1: 14) and being educated
at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts. 22:3).55
Being born in a Hellenized town, Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 22:3), he knew Greek
well so that he could use the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in spite of the fact that he
calls himself a Hebrew(Phil. 3:6). This was normal with a Diaspora Jew like Paul.
The rhetoric of Stoic diatribe and his familiarity of Hellenistic culture, being used
over and again as the metaphors in his writings seem to exhibit this background.56
51
James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, V. 38, Romans 1-8, edited by Bruce M. Metzger, at
al. (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), xxxix. Hereafter cited as James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans….,
52
L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans…, 2.
53
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans..., xxxix.
54
Ibid.,xxxix.
55
O. M. Rao, Paul and Romans (Delhi: IPCK, 2003), 3-4.
56
Ibid., 3.
23
Cung Hnin
If Paul as a Jew and his Hellenistic background are important to understand

his letter to Romans, his conversion experience which took place in the early 30s,
must be prime important, because Paul’s thoughts, writing and theology were being
influenced most of all by his experience near Damascus and by his faith in the risen
Christ as the Son of God that developed from that experience.57 That experience made
a U-turn in his life. Paul the persecutor of the church becomes an apostle and the
church planter and he was committed to the faith he wanted to destroy. That revelation
taught him the unity of divine action for the salvation of all humanity in both the
dispensations, the soteriological value of the death and resurrection of Jesus as the
Messiah in God’s salvafic plan and the understanding of a new vision of salvation
history was dawn as a result of that experience.58
An appreciation of his background is essential for an understanding of Paul’s

letter to Rome, for this background shape so much so in the writing of this letter.
Besides this question of the setting of the letter within the life and work of
Paul, the more detailed questions of the precise date and place of origin are also of
great importance. But dating this with any precision is something of a problem. The
fixed point for Pauline chronology is the proconsulship of Gollio in Corinth (Acts
18:12), for there is an inscription that tells us that this man was in office in A.D 52.
Paul would have been in Corinth at some time during the period A.D 50-54. So this
kind of evidence led some scholars to date Romans as early as A.D 53. But to Leon
Morris A. D 55 seems to be the most probable date for the letter. 59 To James D. G.
Dunn, “Suffice is to say that the letter must have been written some time in the 50s
A.D., probably in the middle of 50s and most probably late 55/early 56, or late
56/early 57.” This view is supported by scholars like Georgi (Georgi, Geschichte, 95-
96), Bornkamm (Bornkamm, Paul.,xii), Crenfield, J.A.T Robinson (Robinson,
57
Raymond E. Brown, S. S. (ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Bangalore: Theological
Publication of India, 2000), 1385. Hereafter cited as R. E. Brown, NJBC…,
58
Ibid., 1385-86.
59
24
Cung Hnin
Relating the New Testament, (London: SCm,1976), 55), F. F. Bruce,(F. F. Bruce Paul.
324) and so on. Others prefer early 58 (including S.H xiii, Michel, 27-28; Black, 20);
others again, early 55 (including Barrett, 5; Haenchen, Acts. 67; Suhl 249).60 There are
yet a number of scholars who date diversely. For instances: Irving L. Jensen as 56
A.D,61 Handley C. G. Moule as 58,62 so also B.H. Carroll as 58,63 and D.J. Moo for
57.64 The one major challenge to this consensus is that of Luedemann, Paul., who
argues for 51/52,65 but this dating wins less support of other biblical scholars and is
less convincing. So we will agree with most of the scholars cited above in affirming
the most likely date for Romans as late 55 to early 57.
As to place of origin, the key factor is the information provided by Paul

himself to the effect that he was about to journey to Jerusalem (15:25). This matches
with the report of Acts 20:3 that Paul spent three months in Greece that would almost
certainly mean Corinth, where his mission had had most success in Greece (Acts
18:1-18). And it fits well with the other snippets of information available to us;
Phoebe, deacon of the church at Cenchrea (16:1-2), eastern seaport of Corinth, would
pass through Corinth to take ship for Rome from Corinth’s western port; and Giaus
and Erastus probably lived in Corinth. So Paul most probably wrote from Corinth; on
this there is scarcely any dispute.66 This is unanimously supported by most of scholars
such as D.J. Moo, B.H. Caroll, Handley C. G. Moule, F. F. Bruce, and L. Morris and
so on.
2.2. The Origin and Character of the Christian Community in Rome: The
Recipients.
60
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans…, xliii.
61
Irving L. Jensen, Romans: A Self-Study Guide (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 16.
62
Handley C.G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd.), 1.
63
B.H. Carroll, Studies in Romans (Nashville: the Sunday School Board, 1935), 11.
64
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans..., 3.
65
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans…, xliii- xliv.
66
Ibid. ,xliv.
25
Cung Hnin
It is plain from the term in which Paul addresses the Christians in Rome that
the church in that city was no recent development. But when we try to ascertain
something about the origin and early history of Roman Christianity, there is scanty
direct evidence to reconstruct the situation67 in Rome at the time of writing of the
letter and its origin still remain obscured and its composition and nature in Paul’s day
remains inconclusive.
The tradition that the church in Rome was founded by Peter (or Peter and Paul
together) can not be right.68 It is in this very letter that Paul enunciates the principle
that he will, “not build on another person’s foundation” (15:20). This makes
impossible to think that he would have written this letter, or planned the kind of visit
he describes in 1:8-15, to a church that was founded by Peter. Nor is it likely that
Peter could have been at Rome early enough to have founded the church there. The
fourth century church father Ambrosiaster is probably right in saying this: the Romans
“have embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, without seeing
any sign of mighty works of the apostles.” The most likely scenario is that Roman
Jews, who were converted on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10), brought
their faith in Jesus as the Messiah back with them to their home synagogues. In this
way the Christian movement in Rome was initiated.69
F. F. Bruce is also in line with D. J Moo that being Rome the centre of the day:
all roads led to Rome, Rome visitors of Pentecost festival of A.D 30, would be
responsible for the initiation of Christianity at Rome. 70 James D.G. Dunn is also in
favour of the above proposal, holding the view that Christianity in Rome most likely
emerged first within the Jewish community there because the movement began as a
sect within the spectrum of first century Judaism and whose first missionaries were all
67
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1973), 12. Hereafter refers to as F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans….,
68
O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 72-157, as cited by
D. J. Moo in the Epistle to Romans (TNICNT)…, 4.
69
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…,4.
70
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Romans…, 13.
26
Cung Hnin
Jews. He supports the view that there were strong links between Jerusalem and Rome
in the first century which enables the recent convert to go to Rome easily and began
new faith there.71 F.F. Bruce and James D.G. Dunn, unanimously agree that Aquila
and Priscilla (Romans 16:3; cf. Acts 18:2), appear to have been Christians before they
met Paul and were probably members of the original group of believers in Jesus
resident in Rome.
Ambrosiaster is probably also right, when he identifies the synagogues as the

starting point for Christianity in Rome. Enough Jews had migrated to Rome by the
end of the first century B.C., to make up a significant portion of the population. Their
many synagogues apparently were independent of one another. An important event in
the history of the Jews in Rome is mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius that
Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly rioting at the
instigation of Chrestus” (25.2). Most scholars agree that “Chrestus” is a corruption of
the Greek “Christos” and that the reference is probably to dispute within the Jewish
community over the claims of Jesus to be the Christos, the Messiah.72
This kind of evidences suggest the strong Jewish community in Rome in the
first century B.C., where Christianity sprung from their synagogues and it is also
likely that they were quite divided into several house churches (cf. Rom. 16). It is also
possible, though more speculative, that these different house churches were divided
theologically.
2.3. The Occasion and the Purpose of the Letter:
As we have discussed above, the letter must have been written while he was
staying three months in Greece (Acts 20:30-36), during his third missionary journey,
particularly from Corinth (2 Cor. 13:1, 10)73 approximately between late 55 to early
71
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans..., xlvi-xlvii.
72
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans.., 4-5.
73
Ibid., 2-3.
27
Cung Hnin
57 A.D.74 So if the time and place of the epistle are clear enough, the occasion of it is
still clearer; St. Paul himself explains it in unmistakable language twice over. At the
beginning of the epistle (Rom.1:10-15), he tells how much he has longed to pay a
visit; and now that the prospect has been brought near and he evidently writes to
prepare them for it. And in the end of the epistle (Rom. 15:22-23) he repeats his
explanation detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant future,
and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with them the most important stage of
his journey to Spain. We know that his intension was fulfilled in substance but not in
the manner of its accomplishment. He went up to Jerusalem and then to Rome, but
only after two years’ forcible detention and as a prisoner his trial.75
The question of the purpose of Romans has been given so many different
answers because Paul says almost nothing on the subject and the question of why Paul
has written it has host a long and seemingly unending debate among various scholars.
In the Introduction (1:1-15), Paul, of course, talks about his plan to visit Rome and
preach the gospel there, but he says nothing about the purpose of the letter. Yet,
focussing on circumstances within Paul’s own situation as his motivation for writing
to the Romans suggests us some of the plausible purposes of the letters.
2.3.1. A Missionary Purpose:-
This emphasis is sufficiently clear from 15:18-24, 28. Paul sees himself as
“apostle to the Gentiles’ with a crucial role to play in bringing in “the full number of
the Gentiles,” with all which that meant (11:13-15, 25-26). He has completed one
phase of his foundation-laying work (15:19, 23), and he sees the next main phase as
74
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans…, xliii.
75
William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The International Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1980), xxxviii. Hereafter refers to as W. Sanday and A. C.
Headlam,The ICC on the Epistle to Romans….,
28
Cung Hnin
focussing in the North- western quadrant of the Mediterranean (Spain – 15: 24, 28).76
So most scholars agree that one of Paul’s purposes in writing to the Romans was no
doubt to prepare his mission to Spain: to prepare them for his sponsorship for his
missionary journey to Spain, would be even a major purpose of Paul.77
Scholar like Klien, on the other hand has argued on the purpose of the letter on
the basis of 15:20 that Paul thought the Christian community in Rome lacked an
apostolic foundation and therefore he intended to evangelize Rome itself.78 It may be
true to certain extents but hardly win the support of very few scholars. So we will be
more in line with D. J Moo’s view than of Klien’s view, because Paul, the apostle of
the Gentiles, who has unending desire to preach the gospel, especially to the virgin
land, would have a definite plan to go to Spain than to Rome itself, which will in turn
explain the purpose of the letter. Another suggestion is made by Roger Bowen that
Rome being the world’s greatest city at the day is too important to ignore and neglect
and if the Christians there held their faith strongly, the same faith was likely to spread
throughout the world rapidly,79 with this intention Paul wrote the letter to Romans.
But wherever his destination it may be or whatever intension he had, Paul must have
written the letter having missionary purpose in mind.
2.3.2 An Apologetic Purpose:
Romans is neither purely a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s

lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece,80 and his self-introduction
about his life and faith to his recipients. In setting out such a full statement of his
76
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans. lv.
77
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 5-6.
78
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans. lv-lvi.
79
Roger Bowen, A Guide to Romans (Delhi: ISPCK, 1994), 3. Here after cited as Roger Bowen, A
Guide to Romans…,
80
Leander E. Keck, at al., The New Interpreter’s Bible V.X (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 395.
Hereafter refers to as Leander E. Keck, at al., The New Interpreter’s Bible V.X….
29
Cung Hnin
understanding of the gospel (1:16-17), Paul surely wished to gain acceptance of

himself and his faith from the believers in what, after all, was the capital of the empire
and so potentially the most influential of all the Christian churches. This is certainly
consistent with his opening paragraph (1:1-6). So, e.g., Koester- “a letter of
recommendation which Paul has written on his behalf …..The topic of the letter is…
this gospel, and not the person of the apostle.” And 3:8 in particular certainly denotes
sensitivity on Paul’s part to the need for some sort of self-defence against actual
misunderstandings of his gospel.81 Paul’s battle against Judaizers (cf. Galatians; 2
Cor.) had gained for him a reputation as being “anti-law” and perhaps even “anti-
Jewish.” Such rumours of Paul’s stance on these matters had probably reached Rome
and he has to introduce himself with the gospel he preached to the Roman community,
as he is aware that he must diffuse these rumours and perhaps even win over some
who were already hostile toward him. As 14:1-15:13 suggests, he was not only
contending with Jews but also with the Gentiles Christians who scorned everything
Jewish.82 So he wrote the letter as self-introduction and self-defence of himself and of
the gospel he preached to prepare them for his intended visit.
2.3.3. A Pastoral Purpose:-
An increasing popular view in the second half of the 20th century is that Paul
wrote to counter (potential) divisions within Rome among the Christian house
churches, particularly the danger of Gentiles believers despising less liberated Jewish
believers (11:17-25, 12:3, 16; 14:3). This view is strongly supported by Priesker;
Harder; Marxsen; Bartsh; Wiefel; Donfriued, Campbell and Beker and their
hypothesis is regarded as possessing considerable strength.83 So Paul, the apostle, the
master church planter who always dedicated his life for the upliftment of the church
must have the intention when he wrote the letter to give pastoral advices to the
prevailing problems of divisions among the believers. We must assume that Rom.
81
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans. lvi.
82
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 21.
83
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans. lvii.
30
Cung Hnin
12:1-15:6, the summary of his teachings and lessons, must be the outcome of such
pastoral care and concern for the unity ad consolidation of the church in Rome.
The aforementioned three main emphases and purposes hang together and
indeed reinforce each other when taken as a whole, and seem to be the main purposes
of the letter, though there may be many other underlying purposes of the letter.
2.4 The Literary Form of Romans:
Romans, of course, is an epistle, but what kind? Many types of letters were
written in the ancient world, ranging from brief, intimate, and informal note to
carefully crafted treaties designed for a large audience. Where within this range we
should situate the Pauline letter has been much debated.84 The key issue here is the
relation of the epistolary framework of the letter (1:1-15; 15:14-16:23) to the main
body of the letter (1:16-15:13). On the one hand, it is generally recognised that the
Introduction and Conclusion are variations on the familiar pattern of letter writing in
the ancient world (Doty, 13-14), on the other hand, the body is highly distinctive in
content and character, and it seem to share little a “treaties” or “literary dialogue” or
“letter essay” (Stirewalt), which seem to be the distinctiveness of the form Paul
created.85
D.J. Moo also suggests that the features show that the main body of Romans in
what we may call a “treaties” or a “tractacle.” It addresses key theological issues
against the backdrop of middle fourth century Christianity rather than within the
content of specific local problems. Nevertheless, Romans is no timeless treaties, but is
a letter, written on a specific occasion, to a specific community. The issues that Paul
treats are more of theological and practical issues. Romans, then, is a tractate letter
and has at its heart a general theological argument, or series of arguments. R.
84
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 13.
85
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Romans. lix.
31
Cung Hnin
Bultmann compared Romans to the “diatribe” an argumentative genre particularly

with Cynic-Stoic philosophers. Stowers challenged Bultmann’s proposal and in any
case, and no doubt some parts of Romans use this diatribe style (e.g. 2:1-3:8), the
letter as a whole, however, cannot be classified as a diatribe.
Scholars have suggested many other genres and classifications for Romans:
“memorandum” (K. Haacker); “epideictic”, “letter”, (W. Wuellner), “ambassadorial
letter” (R. Jewett), “protrepic letter” (D. Aune), and “letter essay” (M.L Stirewalt).
None, however, quite fits certainly. Romans has similarities to these genres but these
resemblances mean nothing more than that Paul has effectively utilized various
literary conventions of his culture to get his message across. So Romans cannot
finally be put into any single genre; as Dunn says, “the distinctiveness of the letter far
outweighs the significance of its conformity with current literary of rhetorical
customs”.86
2.5. The Integrity and Theological Coherence of Romans:
Is the letter to the Romans as it is now printed in our Bible identical to the
letter that Paul sent to the Christians in Rome? Many scholar answer no87 and it gives
them the impression easily that Romans lacks coherence. Sander, Law, 123-135, and
Raisanen, Law, 101-109, find key points in Rom. 2 at odds with what Paul says
elsewhere. Kinoshina suggests that Romans is a combination of two separate letters;
Scroggs likewise argues that the letter is an amalgamation of two distinct homilies
(Chs. 5-8 and 1-4, 9-11). Most radical in such denials of the integration and coherence
of the letter as a whole have been Schmithels, arguing for two separate letters (A- 1:1-
4:25 + 5:12-11:36 + 15:8-13; B- 12:1-21 + 13:8-10 + 14:1-15 + 15:14-32 + 16:2-23 +
15:33).88 And scholars like Lake, argues that Paul’s original letter was made up of Ch.
86
87
Ibid., 5.
88
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman. lx-lxi.
32
Cung Hnin
1-14, and that he added Ch. 15 when he sent to Rome, and he considered Ch. 16 to be
no part of Paul’s letter to Romans.89
A close study of the text, however, shows that all of theses and similar
suggestions are in greater or less degree unjustified. As for Schmithels in particular:
since his letter A lacks a conclusion and his letter B an introduction, and since the two
fit together quite coherently, his surgery is unnecessary and less convincing.90 So also
the omission of Chs. 15 and 16 are so baseless that we are far from convinced. It is
impossible to think that Paul’s original letter was without Chs. 15 and 16. If we are to
agree with the proposal made, how, then, did the 14 chapter form of the letter
originate? Lightfoot thought that Paul himself may have abbreviated it, in order to
universalise the epistle. But it is unlikely that, had this been Paul’s purpose, he would
have cut off his epistle in the midst of his argument.91
Furthermore, the internal arguments for omitting Ch. 16 are not strong. The
last-minute warning about false teachers in 16:17-20 has some parallel with Paul’s
procedure in other letter; and the special circumstances of Romans explain why it
occurs only here. The number of people greeted poses a greater problem. But the
expulsion of the Jews and Jewish Christians from Rome would have given Paul
opportunity to meet a number of these people (like Priscilla and Aquila) during the
time of their exile in the east. At any rate, the problem posed by the number of
greetings is not great enough to overcome the external evidences in favour of Ch. 16
in Paul’s original letter to the Romans.92
So we conclude that the letter Paul wrote to Rome contained all sixteen
chapters found in modern text and translations.
89
K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivingtons, 1919), 350-66, cited by Douglas J.
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 7.
90
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman. lxi.
91
92
Ibid., 9.
33
Cung Hnin
And the theological starting point and framework in Romans is plain enough.
Christology is the theological ground and starting point of the epistle. Paul’s
understanding of Christ is the only topic broad enough to unify his various emphases.
God’s act on Christ is the starting point of all Paul’s thinking and is so basic to the
early church that he could assume that Roman Christians shared his conviction with
him. In this sense, while Christology is nowhere in Romans the expressed topic, it is
everywhere the underlying point of departure.93
.
Chapter 3
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NOMOS IN PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS
IN RELATION TO HIS TEACHING ON JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH:
AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS.
Introduction:
The law comes to the forefront in the Pauline writings and receives
considerable attention of the Pauline scholars and also host unending confusion and
debates among the scholars over the issues as F. Theilman asserts it “No area of
Pauline studies has undergone more sweeping revision ; in the last half century than
the apostle’s view of the law.”94 Paul gives so much attention to the law in Romans in
particular, and his usage of no,moj in this particular letter exceeds 75 times and it is
interesting to note that in fact the subject on the law is the second most given attention
topic alongside with faith in the letter. But his treatment on the law is such a
confusing position that many of the following questions are being raised by Pauline
scholars over the centuries, in which E.P Sander’s influence comes in a forefront. Was
he antinomians? Was he anti-Torah, anti-Jewish-ethnic marker and was he consistent
when he uses no,moj? To him, was no,moj obsolete? Does it have any value in his
theology of justification by faith? So following these critical trends and attempting to
93
Ibid., .25.
94
Theilman, “Law II: Paul” in the IVP Dictionary of the New Testament . edited by Daniel G. Reid
(Leicester: IVP, 2004), 687.
34
Cung Hnin
answer these questions, effort is made in this chapter to re-examine Pauline views and
usage of no,moj in Romans with special reference to his well-known theology –
justification by faith, by dint of critically analysing some selected passages, which
deal with the aforementioned subject. Therefore, in preparation for the task, but not as
the main task, attention is given to define the meaning of no,moj and the diverse
usages of no,moj in Romans by Paul as follows.
3.1 The Meaning and Usages of NOMOS:

3.1.1. The Lexical Meaning of NOMOS:
No,moj belongs etymologically to “nemw”, “to allot” and thus has the
sense of “what is proper,” “what is assigned to someone.” In ancient times it has a
comprehensive range of meaning which embraces any kind of existing or accepted
norm, order, custom, usage or tradition. No,moj is what is valid and in use.95 As the
epitome of what is valid in social dealing no,moj in its unwritten form is first rooted
in religion96 and the usage are too extensive.
As political order developed in Greece, however, the word came into

specialised use in the juridical sphere. The legal norm or use becomes consciously
established and binding no,moj or law. And no,moj broadens out into the divine
law of the world and the law of nature, the moral law. And only in the 5 th century as
the no,moj came to be written down in individual no,moi, does the word acquire,
in the context of democratic development, the special sense of a “written law,” “a
fixed expression of legal order and the national constitution in a democratic polis”.97
No,moj is “the order assigned to a group of creatures and in force among them…,
something objectives, therefore, which stands over them.” As a life order, therefore,
no,moj was also understood itself as existing mores.
95
Gutbrod, “Nomoj ,” TDNT, IV., 1024.
96
Ibid., 1025
97
Ibid., 1024.
35
Cung Hnin
Philo, in the Stoic tradition, understood no,moj as the one universal law: ….
o`de o` kosmoj …….mia crhtai politeia| kai no,mw| e`ni. Logoj de
evstin fusewj prostaktikoj. Philo is primarily concerned with the agreement of
the Old Testament law and the world order.
In Hellenistic writings the ruler was viewed as the epiphany of God and
therefore as the no,moj e;myucoj of the eternal universal law. At the time of the
New Testament, the meaning of no,moj was generally restricted to the law.98
3.1.2. The Various usages and Meanings of No,moj in Paul:
The use of no,moj in Paul is not uniform, but he employs the term with
diverse ways and meanings. The fact that Paul uses no,moj more frequently than any
other New Testament writers99 and uses this term sometimes with or without the
article and sometimes with or without a preposition. This raises the questions whether
or not the use of the article and preposition is a particular style of Paul, which carries
distinctive meanings. Pauline scholars are not unanimous in answering this question
and some dismiss it as irrelevant or irresolvable.100 Nevertheless, we will take into
consideration the views of some scholars who have dealt with the issue of Paul’s use
of articular and anarthrous no,moj and then those who have considered the
prepositional use of no,moj both with or without the article as follows.
3.1.2.1. Articular and Anarthrous uses of Nomoj:
The debate over the articular and anarthrous use of no,moj in Pauline letters,
which is not new, was pioneered and dominated by J. B. Lightfoot in the late 19 th
century. His argument is clear: that no,moj with the article refers to the Mosaic Law
98
H. Hubner, “no,moj” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament V.2.,edited by Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 2000), 473.
99
Nomoj occurs 199 times in the New Testament and 75 of these are found in Romans.
100
Pratap Chandra Gine, Nomoj in context: Philo, Galatians and the Bangali Bible (Delhi: ISPCK,
2001), 9. Hereafter referred to as P.C Gine, Nomoj in context:…. ,
36
Cung Hnin
and without the article refers to a principle, a wider concept than the Mosaic Law.
According to Lightfoot,
The written Law- the Old Testament – is always o` no,moj. At least it
seems never to be quoted otherwise. No,moj without the article is “Law”
considered as a principle, exemplified no doubt chiefly and signally in the
Mosaic Law, but very much wider than this in its application.101
William Sanday and Arthur Headlum expressed the same view as Lightfoot, but with
addition – anarthrous nomoj also referring at time to the Law of Moses. But to
Ernest De Witt Burton, o` no,moj is the revealed will of God.102
Most recent writers, however, suggest that there is no clear distinction

between the meaning of articular and anarthrous no,moj. E.g. W. D. Davies, Jewish
and Pauline Studies, 235 and In-Gyu Hong are recent scholars who argue that
articular and anarthrous nomoj carry no difference in meaning103 but can mean
differently according to the context. And for this research we will attempt to establish
this view, though we agree with those scholars who maintain a distinction between
the two to a certain extent but unable to agree with their fixed formula for all context
and circumstances.
3.1.2.2. Prepositional Phrases with No,moj:
Paul uses a number of prepositions with articular no,moj in Romans, e.g.,

evk and evn (thrice), avpo (four times), and u`po (once) and dia (twice), and the
interpretation of this has been an open debate for Pauline scholars. But for our
research here we will quote James D. G. Dunn who note the significance of articular
and prepositional anarthrous no,moj in the Pauline letters, and suggests different
meanings of no,moj as used with prepositions in Pauline letters. To him, evn
101
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1902),
118.
102
P.C Gine, Nomoj in context:…., 10-11.
103
Ibid., 11-12.
37
Cung Hnin
no,mw| and cwri.j no,mou in Romans 3:19 – 21. He comments, “The law marks
out those inside its boundaries, and their whole religion and lifestyle (works of the
law) mark them off from those outside the law.104
The Pauline usage of no,moj- articular and anarthrous of no,moj with or without
preposition- is such important as we have discussed above and is presented again here
diagrammatically for the better comprehension.
Paul’s Use of No,moj in Romans105

no,moj (75)
Articular (35) Anarthrous (40)
Without Preposition Preposition Without Preposition Preposition

(22) (13) (26) (14)
evk evn avpo u`po di,a evk evn u`po

di,a eivj
(3) (3) (4) (1) (2) (13) (2) (2) (2) (1)
SECTION I
3.2. Rom. 2:1-29106: Jews, with Law and Circumcision, Are Accountable for Sin:
3.2.1. Introduction:
104
James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990),
221.
105
This diagram is adapted from P.C Gine’s work in P.C Gine, Nomoj in context:…. 78.
106
Out of Rom. 2:1-29, we will not deal so exhaustively on v. 1-11 as central attention, but deal as part
of background studies (Issues) and we will concentrate mainly on vv. 12-29.
38
Cung Hnin
As discussed in Ch. 2, the letter of Paul to Romans is written as a means to

introduce himself with his gospel to the recipients and as means for self-defence
regarding the accusation of being anti-Torah, or anti- Jewish heritage. And in this
letter he discussed thoroughly about his belief in the law, faith and justification. He
opens up a new dimension and belief regarding the law, against the traditional Jewish
belief and observance. The letter of Paul to the Romans is such a well organised letter
that it is doctrinal and theological on the one hand and also so practical on the other
hand as it could be clearly divided into two main section: A: Doctrinal and
Theological (Rom. 1-11), B: Practical Aspect of Christian Life (Rom. 12-16), that it is
also regarded as the best book ever written. The selected text for our research fits in
the first section occupying the stage.
The claim that righteousness or justification by faith is the focus of 1:18- 4:25
might seem odd in light of statistics that emerges from 1:18- 3:20: “righteousness”
words occur only six times and references to faith or believing only twice. It is the
fact that sin, wrath and judgement occupy centre stage in 1:18-3:20.107However we
must consider 1:18- 3:20 as a preparation for, rather than as part of, Paul’s exposition
of the gospel of God’s righteousness and it is a necessary preparation for Paul to
emphasize the sin as dominating and ruling force if at all Paul wants his doctrine of
justification by faith- as God’s free gift- to be accepted by the Romans. In doing so,
Paul has dual focus in 1:18- 3:20 to state succinctly that “all people both Jews (with
law) and Gentiles (without law) are equally under the power of sin (cf. 3:9) - the
universality of sin. In 1:18-32, Paul discuss how all persons are accountable to God
for sin especially targeting to the Gentiles, though having no law as the Jews do, but
having laws through the revelation of God through creation, so they are “without
excuse” (v. 20b) for their sins. Then he turns his direction towards the Jews in 2:1-3:8.
Jews though having laws and being circumcised according to the laws are also equally
accountable to God for sin as the Gentiles. So Paul argues that Jews are as much
subject to sin’s power as are Gentiles and that the old system of the law, in itself, is
107
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…, 92.
39
Cung Hnin
quite insufficient to provide for release from sins power (cf. 3:20). And for the
convenience in this research, the chosen text is divided into two sections. And this
little introduction will lead to the re-examination of Paul’s view on the law with
regard to justification by faith in Romans.
3.2.2. Exegetical Analysis:
3.2.2.1. The Issues (Rom. 2:1-11):-
In this section, Paul turns his attention to his fellow Jews who were boasting in
having laws and being circumcised according to the laws in contrast to the Gentiles,
after accusing the Gentiles primarily of perverting their knowledge of God in 1:18-32.
In vigorous diatribe style, Paul turns on a fellow student of human degeneracy who
evidently counts the preceding indictment as his own, and Paul takes care to frame his
proposition about God’s impartiality in his judgment whether Jews or Gentiles (vv. 1-
11), evident enough that the interlocutor is a Jew (cf. 1:19-32).108 In the first five
verses, Paul uses the second person singular (su., krineij and so on) to accuse the
Jews of earning for themselves the same wrath that is already falling on Gentile
sinners. And this criterion of impartial “fairness” applies even to the Jew who is proud
of being a member of God’s people (vv. 3-5). The second section (vv. 6-11), with third
person plural, Paul explains the inclusion of Jews along with Gentiles under sentence
of God’s wrath by showing that Jews stand on the same basic ground as Gentiles
when it comes to God’s judgement.
For, in the first place, God’s impartiality demands that he treats all people the
same, judging every person according to what he has done (vv. 6-11). To this, the
Jews may object that they possess, in the Mosaic Law, a distinct advantage over the
Gentiles.109 More subtly, the echo of Wisdom of Solomon 15: 1 ff. in v. 4 seems to
suggest as that any Jews has a clear assumption that God’s people are free of the
108
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman…, 78.
109
40
Cung Hnin
grosser Gentile sins and that any Jewish sin is insufficient to disturb Israel’s favoured
status as the people chosen by God.110 From the above discussion, it is vividly evident
that the Jews are boasting over having the laws and being circumcised and being the
people chosen by God, which is inviolable, but will save them and are excused from
the wrath of God. Here the issue arise: whether the Jews possessing the law and
being circumcised and being chosen by God give them the distinct advantage over the
Gentiles? Whether the Jews- having the laws- have a basic equal ground in judgment
with the Gentiles- having no laws? Does the law have any significance in relation to
justification by faith in Paul? Does Paul really think that the laws are obsolete and he
becomes anti-Torah? Does Paul agree with his fellow Jews, that the law gives
favoured status and advantages over the Gentiles? These questions lead us into the
concept of Paul to the law in relation to justification by faith.
3.2.2.2. Paul’s Response:

3.2.2.2.1. Possession of Law No Safeguard (2:12-16):-
3.2.2.2.1.a. Form and Structure:-
The thrust of Paul’s argument becomes clearer in vv. 12-16 where the law
inters the discussion for the first time, to dominate the rest of the chapter (no,moj-
19 times in 16 verses; 9 times in vv. 12-16; avvnomoj twice), and to serve as the
major counterpoint in the argument thereafter.111 The terms in which it is introduced
are significant. For Paul is seeking to deny any false distinction between Jews and
Gentiles (vv. 9-10). The point is that there is no advantage in merely having the laws,
that is, in belonging to the people who hear the Sabbath by Sabbath (cf. Acts 15:21).
The possibility of a “doing” of the law acceptable to God is not dependent on such an
understanding of covenant status but on obedience from the heart unrestricted by
ethnic boundaries (vv. 13-15). As Snodgrass rightly argues, Paul does clearly believes
110
111
Ibid., 94.
41
Cung Hnin
here in “judgment according to works,” and is expounding an essentially Jewish view

of judgment, but radicalised to warn against Jewish overconfidence in election.112
The sequence of thought from v.13 to v.16 is awkward but the transition from
v.15 to v. 16 in particular is just the kind of awkwardness which would arise in
dictation- a viable connection of thought (using law court imagery), and not so
awkward as to require the sort of substantial revision which would be difficult in the
middle of a completed scroll.113
3.2.2.2.1. b. Comment:
V.12: Paul opens his argument vividly about the equal footing of Gentiles- without
law, and Jews, within the law in judgment by stating clearly against Jewish belief:
o[soi gar avnomwj h[marton, avno,mwj kai avpolountai\ kai o[soi evn
no,mw| h[marton( dia no,mou kriqhsontai)114 avnomoj/evn nomw|
( avnomwj/diva nomou,115 “without the law/within the law,” “without the
law/through the law.” It is not by chance that Paul introduces this critical factor (the
law) in this way to draw the distinction between Jews and Gentiles: the Jews as the
people of the law (cf. 4:14, 16), the Gentiles as those without the law. It is important
to grasp Paul’s point here carefully. On the one hand, he starts by taking up the
distinction between the Jews and Gentiles as between those who have the law and
those who do not. Nevertheless, the main emphasis is that there is no distinction so far
as the final outcome of a sinning life is concerned. His real point then is that judgment
will not depend on whether the individual starts from within the people of the law or
from outside. Both will be judged; sin in both cases will be condemned.116 E. P.
Sanders is so clear in his view here, he argued that the law is not an entrance
requirement, but faith in Christ is. His argument if that Jews and Gentiles are on equal
112
Ibid. 94-95.
113
Ibid. 95.
114
The translation is “For as may as sinned without the law, shall also perish without the law; and as
many as sinned within the law, shall be condemned through the law.”
115
Here it is unanimously agreed that no,moj refers to the Mosaic Laws.
116
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman…, 95-96.
42
Cung Hnin
ground, both are under the power of sin- and the identical ground on which they
changed their status-faith in Jesus Christ. The Jews too are under sin. So both Jews
and Gentiles alike are righteoused only by faith in Christ. 117 F. F. Bruce echoed the
same idea “Gentiles will not be condemned for not conforming to the law-code which
was not accessible to them. The principle is laid down that men are judged by the
light that is available to them, not by light that is not available”118 and vice versa is to
the Jews, the law they have will not save them. So here in v. 12, Paul is very clear that
the law will not be a standard of judgment and possession of the law does not of itself
secure the Jews from condemnation. Everyone is judged not according to the law but
according to the sins committed.
V.13: Here in this verse, Paul says, “… the doers of the law shall be counted
righteous.” This verse must be read in the light of the preceding verse that this is
Paul’s sarcastic way of attacking his fellow Jews who boast on having the law, but fail
to obey it. Geofrey B. Wilson is clear enough in his view here, “it was not enough to
be a diligent hearer of the law; it enjoined undeviating obedience to all its precepts.
He who posses the law must be perfectly obedient to the law.”119 In its context in
Romans this sentence can hardly be the sense that they so fulfil it as to earn God’s
justification. Rather is Paul thinking of that beginning of grateful obedience to be
found in those who believe in Christ , which though very weak and faltering and in no
way deserving God’s favour, is, as the expression of humble trust in God, well
pleasing in His sight.120 Paul clearly asserts here that it cannot be the case that mere
possession of the Torah, hearing it read in synagogue, will carry validating with God.
Torah was meant to be obeyed, not merely listened to. What really count is doing
Torah in which the Jews miserably failed to do as it was meant to.121
117
E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 29-30.
Hereafter cited as E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People…,
118
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans…, 90.
119
Geoffrey B. Wilson, Romans (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984), 42. Hereafter refers to
as Geoffrey B. Wilson, Romans…,
120
C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1986), 49.
121
Leander E. Keck, at al., The New Interpreter’s Bible V.X…., 440.
43
Cung Hnin
V. 14-15: According to D. J. Moo, these verses are a self-contained unit, as most of

the Pauline scholars agreed. 122 Here the Gentiles are prescribed as not having the law-
Mosaic Law yet their own judgments and actions are an acknowledgement that the
moral law has been stamped upon their constitution by the Creator.123 The concept of
the Jew that they are the only people who know God’s will was annulled by Paul here
and asserts that Gentiles, although they do not know Moses’ law, have an inward
understanding of God’s will in many matters by nature.124D. J. Moo echoes the same
comment: “These Gentiles, while not possessing the Law of Moses, nevertheless have
access to knowledge as God’s will for them… The Jews do not have in the law a
decisive advantage… for Gentiles had some of the same benefits.”125 So even Gentiles
when they do right out of their conscience, that will defend them as the Jews. So the
point in these verses is that Gentiles though having no law yet having inward sense of
knowing God’s will in their heart have equal footing with Jews and a doing of the law,
which is essentially an inward matter, at the level of heart and conscience and
thought, and which Paul sets in approving antithesis over against Jewish pride and
confidence in possessing the law.
V. 16: Paul now sums up the whole thought by showing that the principle laid down
in v.6, that God “will render to every man according to his work,” will be exhibited on
the Day of Judgment.126 And that God’s judgment will take into account not only
outward acting but also the hidden things,127 where the Jewish hypocrisy will be
judged not excluding the Gentiles’ sins, through Jesus Christ as His Deputy (Messiah
to act as Judge).128
3.2.2.2.2. Favoured Status No Security (2: 17-24):-
122
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…., 148.
123
Geoffrey B. Wilson, Romans…, 42.
124
Roger Bowen, A Guide to Romans...., 37.
125
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…., 151.
126
Geoffrey B. Wilson, Romans…,43.
127
128
W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam,The ICC on the Epistle to Romans…., 62.
44
Cung Hnin
With vv. 17-24, the identity of the interlocutor becomes explicit: a (typical)
Jew whose views Paul knew “from inside.” The diatribe style of the opening verses
(2: 1 ff.), which had been allowed to lapse from 2:6, is now resumed. Paul indictment
is intended to prick Jewish pride and presumption that being the people of God’s law
put them in a uniquely privileged position in relation to the rest of human kind.
Structurally the passage falls into two halves vv. 17-20 and vv. 21-23, with
v.24 providing a conclusive confirmatory scriptural proof. The first half vv. 17-20 are
built on a sequence of pairs, the first set consisting of verbal phrase, and the second
set contained within a single clause, with both sets rounded of with participle clause,
and the second half is build up of a sequence of four rhetorical questions in participle
construction,129 and ended with explicit reference to the law.130
3.2.2.2.2.b. Comment:
VV. 17-20: The Jew who is addressed as such (“you call yourself a Jew”) is not any
particular Jew, or any group of Jews; he is a Jew in general, the Jew per se, the Jew
conscious of his people’s special privilege in being given the law, conscious that the
people chosen by God, and has special prerogatives of that, because vIoudaioj had
been the name used by foreigners for a person belonging to Judea, which was thought
to be a distinctive designation for a Jew against the Gentiles.
So Paul begins by giving voice to this national pride of a “Jew.” The

interlocutor is proud of the name “Jew”. His confidence is based on the fact that he
has been given the law; his sense of security as a Jew is focussed on the law. He
boasts in God- as the God of Israel alone. The interlocutor’s pride was wholly on his
possession of the law and the privileged position this gives him. The Jew is convinced
that the law is the very embodiment of knowledge and truth that he can be a guide and
129
This construction is more clearly shown in the original Greek text.
130
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman. 108-109.
45
Cung Hnin
light (Is. 42: 6-7), and confident that as a Jew having the law, he can be educator and
teacher of those who not having the law are ignorant and immature.131
This is the voice of Jewish fundamentalism – the law as a sure and certain sign
of God’s word tout simple. The very tact that the law puts him in a position of
advantage and superiority over the Gentile as leader, lights, and teachers and so on,
Paul does not contest the fact that such claims can be made and can be valid. But
implicit in this diatribe is that he has misunderstood Gods will, boasts in God
misguidedly, and has a false confidence on the law.132 The favoured status enjoyed by
the Jews for possessing the law is not a security for his justification. Being boasting in
the law and rejecting Christ is the greatest sin any Jew could commit. Paul’s view is
that Christ is the true embodiment of God’s wisdom, not the law (I Cor. 1:24, 30).
V. 21-23: Paul here tries to puncture this false national pride by forthright
denunciation by employing four rhetorical questions.133 While doing this Paul must
have Jewish rejection of Jesus in mind here. Paul is clear here that, “You who are so
sure that having the law puts you in a position to teach someone else (Gentiles), do
you teach yourself?” The fact is, Paul reminds his dialogue partner, that there are Jews
who have acted in fragrant contradiction to the law they teach, by stealing,
committing adultery, and committing sacrilege, which they taught others not to do. In
short, the national boasting in the law has to be set alongside the fact that Jews
dishonour God by breaking the same law. So the Jew as Jew is no better than the
Gentile as the Gentile, and his sin will be judged as severely as that of the Gentile
(V.12) because possession of law is no security.
V.24: The point is nailed firmly by the quotation from Is. 52:5 and probable allusion
to Ezek. 36:20-23. It was the very fact of exile- the people of Israel boasting as God’s
chosen nation because of national disloyalty and became defeated nation, which
caused the Gentiles to despise the name of Yahweh. So is the now Israel’s pride in the
131
Ibid., 116-117.
132
Ibid., 117.
133
“… You, that teach others, will you not teach yourselves?” and “While you preach against stealing,
are you stealing?” and so on.
46
Cung Hnin
law but breaking the law, to Paul, which cause Gentile to jibe at the God who had
chosen such a race. So Paul is clear enough here that, possession of the law and
covenant is no security, and the Jew now should be reassessing the significance of this
covenant status and not simply relying on the fact of his being a Jew and having the
law.134
3.2.2.2.3. Circumcision No Guarantee (2:25-29)
3.2.2.2.3.a. Form and Structure:
The argument settles back to more measured accusations as the indictment

reaches its climax. The degree to which the thought of vv. 25-29 parallels that of vv.
12-16 confirms that Paul’s purpose was not so much to break fresh ground at each
stage as to bring home the same charge with increasing pointedness to Jewish
contemporaries. The climatic focus on circumcision in a measure both of the degree to
which it marked out distinctive Jewish identity and of the danger to which the typical
Jew was exposed by over-reliance on it. Vv. 28-29 is written in a very compressed,
epigrammatic style and function as a final summary statement of the whole preceding
argument. They are built on a series of antitheses made more effective by their being
interwoven.135
3.2.2.2.3.b. Comment:
V.25: Peritomh. – Circumcision is a rite performed by every male of the Jews as a

mark of the people belonging to the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14). The central importance
of circumcision as a test of covenant loyalty and mark of Jewish national
134
Ibid., 118.
135
Ibid., 119.
47
Cung Hnin
distinctiveness is strengthened ever since Maccabees. Circumcision is one of the main

features which distinguish between the Jews and Gentiles. During the 1st century,
when the Gentiles uncircumcised embraced Christianity, the Jews are forcing them to
undergo the rite and without which, to them, there seems no room for salvation (cf.
Acts 13-15). During Paul’s time, circumcision was fundamental to the typical Jew’s
self-understanding, the mark of his religious distinctiveness, the badge of national
privilege, and the seal of God’s covenant favour to Israel. They are confident in
circumcision that it secured salvation for them. This is the false confidence Paul now
attack head on: circumcision will not be sufficient to secure the salvation of anyone
who is a transgressor of the law.136 Circumcision is of value for one who keeps Torah.
In other words, keeping Torah is basic and without it, circumcision becomes an empty
sign, a meaningless talisman (cf. I Cor. 7:19).137
V. 26-27: The same point is reinforced here. It is this keeping of the law which really
counts. The words he uses, in effect, are abbreviated version of Ezek. 36:27, carrying
other biblical echoes as well. The uncircumcised, when they fulfil the requirements of
the law, Paul declares that their uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision; in
other word, God will recognise their physical Gentile state as the badge of their
membership in Israel. As though these were not scandalous enough, Paul goes on to
state that these persons, law-keeping though “naturally” uncircumcised will judge
those who, despite having the letter of the law and physical circumcision, nevertheless
transgress the law.138
VV. 28-29: These verses explain why (gar) circumcision does not guarantee
salvation and why its lack does not bar one from salvation. It is the heart attitude-
inner relationship with God, that ultimately matters- not a rite that affects only the
flesh.139 The true Jew is one who in secret who is the Jew, not outwardly.
“Circumcision of the heart” is an Old Testament expression; cf. Jer. 4:4; Dt. 10:16,
136
Ibid., 126.
137
Leander E. Keck, at al., The New Interpreter’s Bible V.X…., 448.
138
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman…,127.
139
48
Cung Hnin
30:6. It means man’s inward response to God.140 The last phrase reaffirms the true
Jew- who has inner relationship with God will receive the praise and justification
from God.
3.2.3. Summary:-
The main issue dealt by Paul in this section is on the law in relation to Jews
and Gentiles whether the Jews having the law are advantageous over the Gentiles and
will escape the judgement of God and save them because of possessing them. Paul
responses these issues very clearly in three ways:
Firstly, he clearly spells out that possession of the law is not a safeguard (2:12-
16). He denied any false distinction between the Jews and Gentiles and he asserts that
there is no advantage in merely having the law and no distinction so far as the final
outcome of a sinning life is concerned, and sin in both cases will be condemned
(v.12). If at all the Torah is to be of significance, it must be by doing is but not by the
mere possession. He further explains that the Gentiles though having no law, have the
equal footing with the Jews, though having the law yet transgress them, in the
judgment (vv. 14-16).
Secondly, Paul pricks and punctures the Jewish pride by saying that favoured
status is no security (2: 17-24). He agrees to certain extent with the Jews that the law
may put them in a position of advantageous and favoured status, but is not a security
for their justification (vv. 17-20). Again, he punctures the false national pride by
forthright denunciation by employing four rhetorical questions that there are Jews
who have acted in fragrant contradiction to the law they teach (vv. 21-24).
Thirdly, Paul now turns to the issue of circumcision by saying circumcision in

not a guarantee for the Jews (2:25-29). He attacks on the Jewish belief that any
Gentiles who embraced Christianity should be circumcised in order to gain life,
because circumcision in and itself makes no difference and is not sufficient to secure
140
Matthew Black, The New Century Bible Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1981), 60. Hereafter cited as Matthew Black, NCBC: Romans,….,
49
Cung Hnin
the salvation of anyone, and circumcision is of course of value for the one who keeps
the law (vv. 25-27). So he concludes that circumcision does not guarantee salvation
and its lacks does not bar one from salvation (vv. 28-29).
SECTION II
3.3. Rom. 3:21- 4:25: Justification By Faith, Not By Law:-
3.3.1. Introduction:-
This section (Rom. 3-4) might almost be described as the locus classicus for
St. Paul’s ‘great thesis’- justification by faith. The thesis is developed against its
antithesis, viz. the rabbinical doctrine of ‘justification by works’- that a man could be
justified on the grounds of his performance of works of the law. But this is
categorically denied at verse 20. Now a ‘righteousness’ has been manifested on the
ground, not of works, but of faith in Christ Jesus.141
So here is a decisive shift in the argument to a new stage (nuni. de, of v. 21):
the eschatological state of affairs brought about by Christ. Nevertheless, Paul is also
careful to pick up the terms of the preceding conclusion, particularly the double
negative- positive reference to the law. Thus, he underscores the point that his
argument is not against the law as such, but against an assumption, that God’s
righteousness is his commitment to the people of the law. So that a righteousness
cwri.j no,mou, would be scarcely conceivable. Paul’s objective is to argue the
contrary; Jesus sacrificial death provides a different criterion for the understanding of
God’s righteousness; the one God must by definition be concerned for Gentile as well
as Jew (3:21-31). The case is then made in terms of the determinative precedent of
Abraham (Rom. 4).
141
Ibid., 65.
50
Cung Hnin
3.3.2. Exegetical analysis:
3.3.2.1. The Issue:
In this section, God’s ‘righteousness’ (dikaiwsunh) stands at the heart. He

always asserts that ‘The righteousness of God is revealed, apart from the law (cwrij
no,mou) but through faith in Jesus Christ (dia pistij).’ Here he uses a formula –
no,moj Vs. pistij) His reference to the law is so negative that it seems it has no
place at all in his theology of justification by faith. He emphasises so much on faith in
Christ Jesus, that many Jews branded him as anti-Torah. Again, in v.31, he asserts his
view on the law positively that “we do not overthrow the law by faith… on the
contrary, we established the law.” Therefore, his standpoint seems so confusing. And
the issue here arise: whether Paul is really anti-Torah as he seems to be? Does the law
can really bring justification to any observers? Is Paul’s usage of law consistent at all?
What is the significance of law or the position and nature of law in Pauline concept of
justification by faith? And here, we will attempt to answer the above questions in the
following research.
3.3.2.2. Paul’s Response:-
3.3.2.2.1. By Faith in Christ Jesus, Apart from the Law (3:21-26):-
This section (3:21-31) can be divided into two smaller sections: vv. 21-26 and
vv. 27-31. In the first section, the words like dikaiosu,nh and pistij are key terms.
There is a widespread measure of agreement that vv. 25-26a is a pre-Pauline formula.
Another suggestion is given on v.24 that it is also pre-Pauline formula. (Kasemann,
“Verstandnis”). The resulting claim of the first section is simple; Christ’s death, a
sacrifice for sin provided by God in accordance with the law, is God’s means of
51
Cung Hnin
extending his righteousness to all who believe (including those outside of the law).
3.3.2.2.1.b. Comment:-
V. 21: nuni. de here shows a decisive shift in Paul’s argument to a new stage,
denoting a logical contrast (7:17). Cwrij no,mou, “apart from the law,” is the most
typical Hellenistic word for “without,” and the phrase is obviously synonymous with
cwrij evrcwn no,mou (v. 28).142 Dikaiosunh Qeou – would best mean here
that “the righteousness proceeding from God” and “imputed” or “imparted” on the
ground of faith in Jesus Christ.143 So Paul makes a very clear statement here that the
righteousness of God – the justifying activity of God – is now (vnuni – the new era)
attained without any contribution from “works of the law”, as he has made so clear in
2:1-3:20 that the law has failed to rescue Jews from the power of sin. To Paul
justification has always been by faith, apart from the law,144 which is also testified and
prepared by the Old Testament – Torah and prophets 145 (not contradicting each other),
and justification by faith is the development, foreseen and provided in the Old
Testament (cf. 1:2; 4 etc.).
V. 22: Here, Paul talks about the means and nature of righteousness of God. Dia,
pi,stewj vIhsou Cristou, “through faith in Christ Jesus.” Here pistij must mean
“faith” though it can also mean “faithfulness,”146 and the “faith” in v.22, 28, 30 and 26
are abbreviations of the faith in Christ/Jesus.147 So it is clear enough that it is the
believer’s faith in Christ which is the ground of the newly manifested righteousness of
God and there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles which was argued in 2:1-
16.
142
143
Matthew Black, NCBC: Romans…, 44-45.
144
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…., 222-223.
145
R. E. Brown, NJBC…, 839.
146
147
52
Cung Hnin
V. 23: Here the emphasis of the sinfulness of “all” is continued (cf. 3:4, 9, 12, 19, 20).
Dunn has suggested that this is the echo of Adam’s fall 148 as the participation of all in
“man’s first disobedience” but we will rather agree with F. F. Bruce in his view, “Here
we have rather a statement of the fact that all men, as individuals, have sinned”149 and
through sin man falls short/ lacks of the ideal which God had in view when he brought
him into being (cf. v.2 and Is. 43:7).150 Through sin, all are estranged from the
intimate presence of God.151
V. 24: dikaiou,menoi – means not “to make righteous” but simply “to treat as
righteous,” “to declare righteous” though one is really not. Carij is a dynamic word
denoting the unconditional character of God’s action. vApolutrw,sewj means the
“freeing”, or “liberation”, of slaves or prisoners of war, effected by a ransom
(lutron). Evn cristw| vIhsou is Paul’s formula used over 80 times denoting the
decisive act of Christ’s death and resurrection by which the new salvation
history/epoch had been introduced.152 So in the new epoch, the gospel is that God sets
men/women to right relationship with himself by an act of sheer generosity which
depends on no payment man can make, whether any individual is inside the
law/covenant or outside, and one has to depend entirely from start to finish on God’s
gracious power, because the redeeming work is already done in Christ Jesus.153
V. 25: i`lasth.rion – a reference to the Old Testament “mercy seat”, the cover over
the ark where Yahweh appeared (Lev. 16:2), and on which sacrificial blood was
poured. In the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, this “mercy seat” came to be
applied generally to the place of atonement. By referring to Christ as this “mercy
seat”, then Paul would be inviting us to view Christ as the New Covenant equivalent
or antitype and to the ritual of atonement itself. What in the Old Testament was hidden
from public view behind the veil has now been “publicly displayed” as the Old
148
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman…., 168.
149
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Romans.., 102.
150
Ibid., 102.
151
152
153
Ibid., 179-180.
53
Cung Hnin
Testament ritual is fulfilled and brought to an end in Christ’s “once-for-all”154

sacrifice. So Christ is the i`lasthrion of the new dispensation, the means of
expiating the sins that have estranged human being from God.155 A righteous God
could not “connive at” iniquity; and the full weight of his righteous anger pour down
upon Christ,156 for the remission of bygone sins. Therefore, God has demonstrated his
righteousness through Christ – through his blood, which is for the remission of
bygone sins.
V.26: The purpose of Christ’s expiatory death was to demonstrate God’s righteousness
in the “now” time, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in
Jesus. Jesus’ death has the same effect for present sins. The death of Christ, as a
divine “act of righteousness”, proved that God is righteous yet merciful, for, in the act
of demonstrating that he is a just God, he also provides a means by which the
believers can be acquitted.157
3.3.2.2.2. By Faith Alone (3:27-30):-
The second section (vv. 27-31) is in diatribe style, though now is less
confrontational “we” terms, and again indicates the objectives of puncturing Jewish
presumption. The boasting of the Jews envisage in 2:17 and 2:23 is excluded- not by
the law understood in terms of work, in which the Jew can take such pride, but by the
law understood in terms of faith (v. 27). For law understood in terms of faith mean
that the lawgiver can be God of both circumcised and uncircumcised, since his
righteousness is not limited to the circumcised but extends to all who believe (v.30).
In this way, the law as given by God is truly understood, affirmed and established.
154
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…., 231-233.
155
156
Matthew Black, NCBC: Romans…, 69-70.
157
Ibid., 70-71.
54
Cung Hnin
3.3.2.2.2.b. Comment:
V. 27-28: Paul attacks the self-confidence of the Jew as Jew, the boasting in God as
Israel God, the pride in the law as indicating God’s commitment to his people. There
is no way that a Jew could boast because it is not at all by works of law- the perverted
use of law, law-righteousness.158 Paul had explained God’s ways of putting sinners
right with himself (vv. 21-26), he asks, “What room is left for boasting in the gospel?”
The question is applicable to all men, though it has particular point for the Jew who
glorified in his privileges and boasted of his works (cf. 2:17-25; Phil. 3:4-6). His
answer is, “it is entirely shut out.”159 No room for boasting, since it is faith in Jesus
Christ, which is available to all, which excludes boasting in privilege status.160 The
law that excludes such boasting is not that of work but of faith. And this is because:
“faith is self-renouncing; works are self-congratulatory. Faith looks to what God does;
works have respect to what we are.” The apostle therefore concludes that a man is
justified by the faith, which receives the gift of God’s righteousness, quite apart from
the works of the law.161
V. 29-30: In unexpected line, Paul tackles the subject from the standpoint of
monotheism.162 Paul takes one of the most basic of Jewish beliefs, monotheism, and
turns it against Judaism. The “oneness” of God was confessed by the pious Jew every
day (Deut. 6:4). Yet if this is so, then God must be God of the Gentiles; else they
would be left with no god.163 So Paul here exploits a tension in Jewish thought
between God as Creator- so Lord of all nations and God as Israel’s Lord alone, 164 and
set forth the universality of the lordship of Yahweh for all nations. Then since this
“one” God is the same for all, he cannot have two ways of declaring men righteous,
158
E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People…, 32.
159
160
161
Geoffrey B. Wilson, Romans…, 63-64.
162
L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans.., 187.
163
164
55
Cung Hnin
one for Jews and another for the Gentiles. In the matter of their acceptance with God,
Jews therefore enjoy no superiority over Gentiles. Paul argues that god is one and of
all that he rigteouses the uncircumcised and the circumcised on the same basis, faith-
is in favour of equal status and against privilege.165 Salvation is neither guaranteed by
circumcision, nor precluded by uncircumcision, because anyone whom God justifies
is justified by/through faith. Such recognition of faith is a decisive factor in
salvation.166
3.3.2.2.3. Justification by Faith Establishes the Law (3:31)
Katargew can be translated, “abolish, do away with,” as well as “nullify,

render ineffective” which is opposite to i`stanw, “establish, confirm, make valid.”167
This last verse reveals Paul’s desire to prevent his readers from drawing too extreme a
conclusion from his argument against the law. Paul’s blunt rejection of the law from
any role in justification in favour of faith (v. 20-21, 27-28),168 seems to mean that he
seeks to nullify the law that his position on the law leads to antinomianism. 169 If the
apostle excludes works and what the Old Testament prescribes them, does not his
doctrine of faith evacuate the Old Testament of its meaning, and does it not make law
void, and lead to disregard of it? To this the apostle replies that it certainly does not,
but that, on the contrary, the gospel puts law on a proper basis and establishes it on its
true foundation as a revelation of God’s will.170 Here Paul responses “mh.
ge,noito”, “Not at all, God forbid” is a very strong negation, which Paul uses quite
frequently after rhetorical question, chiefly in Romans (3:6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7 and so
on).171 So here he emphatically negates the idea that his justification by faith nullifies
165
166
167
168
D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary, (Secundrabad: OM Books, 2001), 1130.
169
170
W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1953), 122. Hereafter cited as W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans…,
171
56
Cung Hnin
the law. That Paul affirms here a continuing role for the law, despite its playing less
and indirect part in justification, is clear. The following are the possible way of
interpreting the Law’s continuing role being played even in the new era.
1) The first is the most popular, its advocates point to 3:19 and 3:21 for evidence
that Paul in this context uses “law” broadly as a reference to scripture. And in
both 3:21 and Ch. 4 (cf. Gen 15:6); Paul affirms just this testifying role of the
law in relationship to his teaching of justification by faith. While, then, it is
faith, not the law, that justifies, this stress of faith “establishes” that law by
setting forth that to which the law bears witness.
2) According to a second interpretation, the law is established in its role of

condemning sinners and preparing the way for Christ (cf. 3:19; Gal. 3:15-
4:7).
3) When the meaning of law in the immediate paragraph is considered, it is clear

that it is the commanding aspect of the law that is prominent: “(law) of work”
(v.27) and “works of the law” (v.28). Paul normally uses “law” to denote the
body of commands given by God through Moses.
And in other context, where the continuing validating of law is discussed, this is the
significance of the law (cf. 7:7-12; 8:2-4; 13:8-10). This makes it a likely that Paul
argues here for the establishment of the Mosaic Law in its commanding aspects.172 To
W. H. Griffith Thomas, there is no contradiction between the law and grace because
Christ is the end/fulfilment of the law of righteousness. Thus, the apostle doctrine, as
Haldame rightly says, really establishes law by making Christ fulfil its demands,
which man could not possibly do, and so the Old Testament law is not made void but
established through the gospel.173
It could also possibly mean that Christians are obliged to continue to obey the
“moral” demands of the law, as a result of the justification we received through faith,
172
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans…, 253-254.
173
W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans…, 123.
57
Cung Hnin
but not as a means to be justified (cf. Rom. 8:2-4; Rom. 12-15). So the righteousness
of faith does not abrogate but actually establishes the law. For by faith, “we attain a
perfect righteousness, we are interested in the most complete obedience of Christ to
the moral law; and that hereby every type, promise and prophecy is fulfilled (cf. Mt.
5:17; Lk. 16:17).174
3.3.2.2.4. By Faith alone: Elaboration with Respect to Abraham (4:13-22):-
In chapter 4, Paul appeals to Abraham to support his insistence that

righteousness can be attained only through faith. Paul’s purpose here is mainly to
draw out the implication of this sola fide. To accomplish these purposes, Paul
“exposits” Gen. 15:16: “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as
righteous.” From vv. 1-8, Paul demonstrates that the reckoning of Abraham’s faith for
righteousness is an entirely gracious act that by its nature excludes any appeal to
works. The contrast between circumcision and uncirucmcision dominates vv. 9-12 and
reckoning his faith for righteousness took place before he was circumcised. In vv. 13-
22, Paul focuses on the promise that Abraham would be the father of “many nations”.
The ruling contrast is between “faith” and “law” and the quotation of Gen. 15:16 at
the end of v.22 brings Paul’s exposition back to where it begins in v.3.175
3.3.2.2.4.b. Comment:-
evpaggeli,a – “promise”, which occurs for the first time in the letter,
becomes the dominant word over the next few verses. Paul’s uses of the word usually
refers the promise(s) given to the Patriarch (9:4, 8-9; 15:8)176 to be father of all the
families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). Having shown that Abraham was justified by faith
alone (vv. 1-8), and that this “uncircumcision-faith” made him the father of all
174
175
176
58
Cung Hnin
believers (vv. 9-12). Paul here now confirms his argument that ‘for it was not through
law’ of any kind that the promise was given to Abraham.177 Paul implicitly assails the
Judaizing view that all blessings/promises come to Abraham because of his merits in
keeping the law.178
V. 14-15: Here Paul enlarges that for God to bless the merit-folk would make God’s
promise-method impossible, and so our faith in his promise, empty, and void. Faith
and law are contradictory principles. And the law gives no life but only brings forth
God’s wrath and the absence of law is the absence of transgression. The entrance of
the law is the entrance of transgression.179
V.16-17: Since an adherence to the law only brings conviction of sins and ministers
wrath, the one way in which sinners may receive the inheritance is through the faith,
which was to make the promise sure to all the seed and Abraham’s spiritual
fatherhoods extends to Gentiles as well as Jews. In the eternal purpose of God,
Abraham was destined to be the spiritual prototype of all who believe. And first he is
the God “who giveth life to the dead and second he calleth the things that are not.”
God’s decree gives certain futures to those things are without present existence.180
V. 18-21: Here in these verses, Paul made the following points about Abraham’s faith
which was reckoned unto him as righteousness.
1) There was, from one point of view, no hope that Abraham could have a son. He
believed “against hope” that he would ultimately become the father of many nations
(v.18).
2) He did not ignore the difficulties, but carefully ‘considered’ those (19).
3) He also recognised that ‘the promise of God’ had been given a very long time
before, and had not been fulfilled (v.20).
177
178
179
William R. Newell, Romans: Verse by Verse (Chicago: Grace Publications, 1943), 143-144.
180
59
Cung Hnin
4) He also considered what God, who had given the promise, was like (v.21).181
5) It was because Abraham’s attention was fixed upon the promise that he was not
inwardly torn by distrust, but was rather strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
Abraham glorified God as God, by recognising him as the all-powerful Creator who
could not fail to keep his covenant word (C. K. Barret) (v.20-21).182
V.22: “Wherefore also” indicates the consequence of the faith described in v. 18-22.
Since Abraham’s unwavering faith glorified God by recognising upon his faithfulness,
God also reckoned it to Abraham for righteousness (cf. Gal. 15:6; Rom. 4:3).183
3.3.3. Summary:
Throughout the exegesis in this section, Paul deals with his great thesis on
“justification by faith” against the rabbinical doctrine of Jews “justification by works
of law” that a man could be justified on the grounds of his performance of works of
the law. He responded this issue in a very convincing and consistent way as follows.
Firstly, he negates the Jewish idea that the performance of the law could
justify them by asserting outrightly “by faith in Christ Jesus” and which is totally
apart from the performance of the law (3:21-26). The justifying activity of God is now
attained without any contribution from works of law (v.21), but by faith in Christ and
it is extended to all (v. 22).It is so clear that one need not to be Jewish to be righteous.
The fact is that all have sinned (v.23) and all who have faith in Christ are justified on
the basis of God’s gracious power (v. 24) because Christ has acted as the hilasterion
and is the means of expiating the sins (v. 25) and Christ’s expiatory death proved that
God is righteous yet merciful.
181
Roger Bowen, A Guide to Romans...., 58-59.
182
183
Ibid., 76.
60
Cung Hnin
Secondly, Paul attacks the self-confidence of the Jews and their boasting,
because there is no room for boasting for one is justified by faith alone apart from any
contribution by the works of law (vv. 27-28). He proved this by Jewish monotheistic
belief that God is one and is the same for all and has only one type of judgement for
all and one way of justifying that is through the principle of faith (vv. 29-30).
Thirdly, from his blunt rejection of the law in favour of faith, he seems to
mean that he seeks to nullify the law but he negates such accusation and idea. To him,
the gospel rather sets law on a proper basis and establishes it on its true foundation as
a revelation of God. Paul affirms that even in the new epoch, the law has a continuing
role to play, to convict all as sinners and prepare the way for Christ.
Finally, he proved his justification by faith using the Old Testament figure –
Abraham, saying that Abraham attained righteousness through faith, apart from his
own work, the reckoning of Abraham as righteous also took place before he was
circumcised. Since law brings only conviction of sins, the only mean to life is through
faith (v. 14-17). And in this Abraham is the spiritual father of all because his faith is
such that he hopes against hope (vv. 18-21) and God also finally reckoned him
righteous on account of his unwavering faith.
Section III
3.4. Rom. 7:1-25: Freedom from Bondage to the Law:
3.4.1. Introduction:-
This chapter is one of the most famous chapters in the Bible. Scholars,
preachers and lay people alike are fascinated by Paul’s vivid description of human
struggle and frustration in vv. 7-25 and it also has aroused vigorous debate on it. The
main topic is the Mosaic Law. Paul makes two basic points. First, using the analogy of
marriage, Paul urges that a person’s bondage to the law must be served in order that
he/she may be put into a new relationship with Christ (7:1-6). This, the positive
teaching of the chapter, gives rise to questions about the origin and nature of the law.
61
Cung Hnin
These Paul answers in 7:7-25, where he shows that the law is from God, but it has
nevertheless become the unwitting tool of sin, being used to confirm and imprison in
death.184
However, the law is good. In vv. 7-13, he showed, from his own experience of
trying to keep God’s law, in vv. 14-25, he used vivid language to show that God’s law
still affects him and it is still an important part of his life. And it shows that Christians
acknowledge the law to be good.185
3.3.2. Exegetical Analysis:
3.3.2.1. The Issue:
As we have discussed over and over in the previous section, Paul continues to
tackle with the old same issue- that is the law in relation to justification by faith. And
his concept on the law had been a complicating factor through out the whole letter.
Paul so far has been dealing mostly with the negative effect of the Mosaic Law (3:19-
20, 27-28; 4: 13-15; 5:13-14, 20), and the inability of the law to save the people. So
the law has very less and indirect (even no place as some are for) role to play in his
teaching on justification by faith against the typical Jewish belief. He continues to
portray his preoccupation with the problem, “what role did the law still have in human
life?” Are human still under the law? Are human obliged to perform the law to be
righteous? Can the law make them right with God then? And his negative concept on
the role of the law: Christ set us free from law (v. 1-6); righteousness of God revealed
apart from law (3: 21 ff.) lead his readers to raise another issues on the nature and
significance of the law. Is the law evil and sinful or sin itself or is it meaningless and
obsolete? Does the law have any value at all for the now time after the new epoch
comes? These questions lead us into Paul’s responses in Rom. 7.
184
185
62
Cung Hnin
3.4.2.2. Paul’s Response:
3.4.2.2. Released from the Law, Joined to Christ (7:1-6).
3.4.2.2.a. Form and Structure:
Vv. 1-6 serve structurally: (a) as a gathering up of the main thrust of Ch. 6,
believers and sin, but now with reference to the law; (b) as the equivalent within Ch. 7
to 6:11-11; and (c) with 7:5-6 in particular introducing the chief emphases of Ch. 7-
8.186 And this is the analogy of marriage Paul deliberately chooses to serve his purpose
in showing the believers’ relationship with the law: that they are no longer under the
law because Christ has already set them free.
3.4.2.2.b. Comment:
V. 1-3: Having proved that believers have died to sin (Rom. 6), Paul next explains the
way in which they have become dead to the law and released from the law.187 Paul
said that death sets a person free from the law. This can clearly be seen in the case of
the law of marriage, well known to both Jews and Gentiles living in Rome. A wife
whose husband dies is free from the law which bound her to him; she is free to start a
new life with another man. In the same way, Christians are now free from the law;
they are free for eternal life with Christ.188 By this he does not mean that the believer
is free from responsibility to fulfil the content of the law, which is God’s
unchangeable will for humanity. Rather, freedom from law means no longer to be
under its condemnation.189
V. 4-6: Jews, and many others, are under the law, i.e. they try to gain God’s approval
by obeying His law. But in fact the law only shows up wrong doing and punishes it
with death. The law leads to sin, which lead to death (v. 5). Nevertheless, those who
belong to Christ have already died- with him; and he rose from the dead, we share his
186
187
188
189
Walter A. Elwell, eds. Baker Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), 938.
Hereafter cited as W. A. Elwell, eds. Baker Commentary on the Bible…,
63
Cung Hnin
new life and live for God (v.4). Therefore obeying the law is no longer the way to
God, or the way of life. The law is no longer the master because (a) we do not have to
obey in order to live; (b) we will not be condemned by it, because righteousness now
comes from Christ, not from our own obedience. We, however, do obey the law, or try
to (v.6), but we now do so not in order to gain life, but as a result of a new life which
God has already given us through Christ.190 That we are dead to the law and released
from the bondage of the law through Christ and now united with Christ.
3.4.2.2.2. The Law, However, Is Holy, Just and Good (7:7-13):
With v.7, the crucial issue is posed: has Paul’s treatment of the law consigned
the law to sin and so without positive reference for the believers? It is clear from the
question itself that Paul intends what follows as a defence of the law. It should be also
noted that v.13 does not only conclude vv. 7-13, but also serves as a transition and
introduction to the next section also, in accordance with Paul’s usual style.191
This paragraph has two purposes: to exonerate the law from the charge that it
is sinful and to delineate more the true relationship among sin, the law and death.
Secondly, Paul admits that, though the law is not sin, it does have close relationship to
sin. For the law brings recognition of sin and even stimulate sinning (vv. 7b-8). 192 But
he concludes with positive point: the law is holy, just and good.
3.4.2.2.2.b. Comments:-
V. 7-8: The questions posed here reflect a criticism of Paul’s gospel, Paul’s rejection
of the law, the Jewish accusation that he believes that the law is by its nature evil and
sinful. Should Paul hold such a view, he would effectively destroy any continuity
190
191
192
64
Cung Hnin
between the law and his gospel, between the Old Testament and New Testament,
between Moses and Christ. Indeed, many Jews and Jewish Christians accused Paul of
holding such an opinion. Paul is undoubtedly aware that such charges against him
have reached the ears of Roman Christians. So, to prepare the way for his visit and the
enlistment of the Romans in his missionary efforts, he seeks here to dispel any such
apprehensions, using emphatic rejection, “Is law sin? By no means! Mh.
ge,vnoito.”193 Sin is an alien power outside God’s will so he denied explicitly the
implied equation of sin and the law, and in fact, the active agent that produce sin is
not God, nor even the law, but sin itself.194
However, Paul’s rejection of the equation between the law and sin does not
mean that he is taking back what he said earlier (e.g. 5:20; 7:5) - the law has become
allied with sin- a`martia- as a personified power oppressing human experience of
everyday. Although the law is not itself sin, the law and sin do have a definite
relationship.195 Paul asserts as a universal truth that sin is experienced only through
law, and in particular that the desire of covetousness is known only by virtue of the
law, which forbids coveting.
The law is not “sin”, nor the originator of sin, but the occasion or operating
base that sin has used to accomplish its evil and deadly purpose. Nothing bad and
sinful in the law itself but because of Paul’s own sinful nature that rebelled against the
law.196 To Matthew Henry, the great advantage that Paul had found by the law is that
“he was discovering that ‘I had not known sin but by the law’ that the law taught him
a lesson that he is sinful, and this is the significance of the law that all men need
justification by faith…., it was sin that wrought it, not the law but it took occasion by
the law.”197 But we should not think that God give the laws intentionally to condemn
so that he can subsequently save on the basis of faith but rather God wills the good
193
For further explanation on the construction and usage, refer to Rom. 3:31 in Section II.
194
E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People…, 71-72.
195
196
W. A. Elwell, eds., Baker Commentary on the Bible…, 938-939.
197
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Whole Bible. (USA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1998), 2209.
65
Cung Hnin
but sin averts it and when it fails the intended purpose, God gives alternative to be
saved by faith in Christ.198Sin uses the law as its operation base, so the law and the sin
are like the wind and the fire.
V. 9-11: Here, Paul demonstrates the reason why God’s law is good by showing from
his own experience, the effects of God’s law in people’s lives. Before Paul became a
Christian, he experienced the law in three ways: (a) It showed him that many of his
thoughts and deeds were wrong (v.9 and v.7). Before Paul began to think seriously
about God’s will for man’s life, he thought that he was “alive”, i.e., right with God.
The law showed him that he was in fact sinful and spiritually dead. The law is like the
sun which shines through the windows of a house and reveals the insects and the dust.
(b) The law also increased Paul’s sinful desire (v.8, 9, 11). When people learn that
they are forbidden to do something, they often want to do that very thing. (c) The law
condemned Paul for his sin (vv. 10, 11b). The law says that those who go against God
deserve to die (Rom. 1:32). Therefore, when Paul realised through God’s law
i. He was already condemned by the law and was therefore dead (vv. 9, 11).
ii. He would be ultimately condemned by that law on the Day of Judgment.199
In this passage, Paul uses the past (Aorist) tense, and seems to have been
speaking of the past experience. He was remembering how he felt before he met
Christ. But in v. 14 he began to use the present tense.
V. 12-13: Here Paul uses both no.moj and evntolh, referring to the Mosaic Law (v.
7),200 no doubt partly for emphasis and partly to make clear that he was speaking of
the law as a whole.201 Having shown that the law is innocent “cat’s paw” of sin, Paul
can now return and complete the point with which he began the paragraph, “Is law
sin? By no means!” (v. 7a)… the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just
and good. Paul introduces this verse as the interference to be drawn from the true role
198
199
Roger Bowen, A Guide to Romans...., 93-95.
200
201
66
Cung Hnin
of the law in the history that he has sketched in vv. 7b-11.202 Paul’s main concern is
that the no.moj is misused by a`martia as its operational base, but no guilt can be
attached to it. Rather it was in its basic imperative, concerned with life: h` evntolh,
h` eivj zwh,n. It is hamartia that was guilty of the pervasion of the eivj zwh,n
into an eivj qanaton (7:10). The first eivj (preposition) is intended to express the
primordial intention of the law- what it really out for.203 God does not give the law to
condemn, rather he gives the law in order that it should be obeyed, so God wills the
good, which is represented by the law, but sadly sin grasps the law away from God. 204
Thus with perfect clarity Paul can state that it was not what was good which brought
death ‘to me’ i.e., not the law, which is holy, and its commands, which are holy, just
and good (v.12) - but hamartia which by the very fact that it abused and exploited the
good showed itself to be beyond all measure sinful and heinous (v. 13).205
Thus in spite of its connection and disastrous outcome and inability to justify
any person, the law at any rate is holy, the commandment is holy, just and for our
good (cf. Deut. 6:24).206 For the objectives used point to the fact that the law perfectly
reflects the characters of God and demands of us the correspondent consecration and
purity. The law is still holy, set apart to God, acceptable to God, and still just and
good, intended to benefit man in the various dimensions of his individual and
corporate existence.207 It is good, holy and just because it makes all men/women
aware of their sinful nature and their need of God’s grace, as Augustine says, “God
commands what we cannot do that we may know what we ought to seek from him.”208
3.4.2.2.3. The Law is Spiritual and Good, However Sinful Nature still reigns
202
203
Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1984), 71. Hereafter cited as Hubner,
Law in Paul’s Thought…,
204
205
Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought …, 71-72.
206
C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans in TheMoffatt New Testament Commentary (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1938), 111-112. Hereafter cited as C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the
Romans…,
207
208
67
Cung Hnin
(7: 14-25):
In this section, Paul continues to speak in the first person singular, but he
leaves the past tense and uses the present. In vv. 7-13, sin assaulted him by stealth and
struck him down. Here, he puts up an agonising resistance, even if he can not beat
down the enemy. He is a man living a life in two planes simultaneously, eagerly
longing to live a life in keeping with the higher plane, but sadly aware of the strength
of indwelling sin that keeps on pulling him down to the lower plane.209 D. G. Dunn
calls this as “an apology for the law” because it stands as his previous treatment of
this major counterpoint theme had made necessary and he observes that the “I” form
is influenced more by Jewish Psalm tradition (cf. 7:9) than by diatribe style.
V. 14-20: o` no,moj pneumatiko,j evstin (v. 14), “the law is spiritual,” in the
sense, presumably that it derives from the Spirit, embodies the Spirit, manifests the
Spirit, was intended to address at the level of the Spirit. vEvgw – the evgw is
immediately defined as sarkinoj, that is, the “I” as embodied in flesh, belonging to
the realm of flesh- made of flesh and blood (cf. I Cor. 3:1’ II Cor. 3:3). 210 Nini. de,
(v.17) “but now” – the contrast is logical, not temporal. vEvn evmoi, toutv
evstin (v.18) - the part of the man is which sin thus establishes itself is not his higher
self, his conscience, but his lower self, the flesh which is not itself evil, is too easily
made the instrument of evil.211
The strange fact that sin should used so essentially good a thing as law to
destroy a man (7: 7-13), need some further explanation. The explanation lies in a
sphere beyond the individual self. I am a creature of flesh. The flesh in accordance
with Hebrew thought in general, Paul does not think of it as necessarily evil, but as in
itself powerless for moral ends212 and to combat with sin. In this section, Paul explains
209
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eermans Publishing Company, 1973), 150-151.
210
James D. G. Dunn, WBC, V. 38, Roman…, 387- 389.
211
W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam,The ICC on the Epistle to Romans…. ,387-389.
212
C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans…, 112.
68
Cung Hnin
the struggle every Christian go through by his own experience. Even in Paul’s
Christian life, the law of God still had a part to play. In these verses, Paul was saying
that evil is still in man, not in God’s law, sinful nature in man is still reigning, and he
proved this from his own daily experience. His life was like a battle-field where two
forces are at constant war.213 He describes them as follows
Good vs. Evil214 in Paul
The forces of Good The forces of Evil
The law (Spiritual/good) (V. 14,16) Paul’s sinful self (v. 14, 17, 18, 20)
Paul wants to do good (v. 19) Paul often does evil (v. 15, 19)
Paul hates evil (v. 15, 19) Sin in Paul does evil (v. 17, 20)
The real Paul loves God’s law (v. 16, 18) Sin in Paul’s body defeats him (14, 15,
16, 19)
Paul’s mind is on the side of goodness Paul’s body sins (v. 15, 19)
(v. 15, 16, 18, 19)
By this Paul clearly portrays the inward conflicts of Christians that someone
who loves the law of God and longs to do it, but is forced by a stronger power than
himself to do things which he detests, “for I do not do what I want; but I do the very
thing I hate” (vv. 15, 16, 19), is no “abstract argument but the echo of the personal
experience of an anguish soul.” Paul himself knows what it means to be torn this way
and that by the law of his mind which approves the will of God, and the law of sin and
death which pulls the other way.215 Paul was here describing himself as a man who is a
servant of God but who is often defeated in his desire to please God. He has good
aims but he cannot achieve them. His mind is on God’s side, but his body is weak and
213
214
This table is taken from Roger Bowen’s work on A Guide to Romans, 96, and implemented to the
present form.
215
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans…, 151.
69
Cung Hnin
defeated. Paul’s mind is therefore, a strong witness to the fact that God’s law is
good.216
Vv. 21-25: Paul is now ready to sum up the condition described in the preceding
verses (vv. 14-20). “The law” here has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law as this
tradition clearly shows: it is ‘the law of sin’ (v. 23) which habitually opposes Paul’s
will to do good. Paul though delights in God’s law; he sees ‘a different law’ – the law
of sin- that is constantly at war with his whole-hearted assent to ‘the law of God,’
which he calls “the law of God in my inmost self” (v. 22-23),217 and he finds the law
of sin- the rebellious principle, a foreign power- try to bring him into captivity (v. 23).
And he groans for deliverance from ‘this body of death’ (v. 24), and finds the answer
in the triumphant event wrought by Christ Jesus,218 and is a classic statement of the
eschatological tension set up by the death ad resurrection of Christ.219 Such is the
situation, serving the law of God with his mind on the one hand, but serving the law
of sin with his flesh on the other hand, will continue until the glorious day of
consummation (cf. 8:11); until then this strange duality remains.220
3.4.3. Summary:
As we have maintained throughout the whole section, the main issue even in
this section revolves around the nature and role of the law in relation to justification.
Here he deals with two main issues: Are human under the Law of Moses (as to gain
life)? Secondly, is the law sin by nature and itself then? In response, Paul clearly
asserts that human are released from the law but joined to Christ (7:1-6). This he
clearly demonstrated by using the analogy of marriage that a wife whose husband dies
is free from the law of marriage and so is the Christians who died with Christ is free
from the law. Death sets a person free from the law (v.1-6). However, being free from
216
217
218
Ibid., 124-125.
219
220
70
Cung Hnin
the law does not mean being free from responsibility to fulfil the content of the law,
but rather means being free from its condemnation. And the believers still obey the
law, but not in order to gain life, but as a result of a new life which God has given
through Christ.
Secondly, he emphatically negates the idea that the law is sin by itself, “is law
sin? By no means!”(v.7). The law is not sin nor the originator of sin, however sin uses
it as the operating base “a cat’s paw” to accomplish its evil and deadly purposes (v.8).
And the law functions in a new way, as to show all men/women that all are sinful (v.
7, 9) and are in need of justification by faith. In spite of the law’s inability to merit
anyone’s salvation and its connection with sin, the law and commandment at any rate
are holy, just, good and spiritual (vv. 12, 13, 14).
Paul also admits and come to the conclusion by acknowledging the sinful
nature indwelling in every man and making constant war with the inner-self that
delights in obeying the law of God (v. 21-23). He has a desire to obey the law of God
but was often defeated by sin/his desire and is a captive to the law of sin. And he
concludes that this warfare/inward conflict will continue till the glorious day of
consummation where Christ will eventually deliver him from the law of sins and
death (vv. 21-25; cf. 8:11).
71
Cung Hnin
Chapter 4
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NO,MOS IN ROMANS IN RELATION TO
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
4.1. Introduction:
Having studied Paul’s concept on the law so exhaustively in the
preceding chapter, it has been so clear that he dealt so much on the law, not as the
focal emphasis and framework of his theology, but as to emphasize effectively on his
teaching on justification by faith. In other words, the law he teaches is to support his
teaching on justification by faith, because he teaches about the law, always in relation
with justification by faith. The law is effectively used as his instrument or tool to
build his theology on justification. In other word, the law must not have been given
such an important place as he did, unless he had any intension to teach so powerfully
on justification by faith. So here lies the question: why is the law so important for him
that he dwells so much on the law to support his teaching on justification by faith as
he did? What role does the law play on that great theological framework? To answer
these questions, a clear picture must be drawn first of all on his concept on
justification by faith from his epistles.
4.2. Paul’s Teaching on Justification:
The Pauline vocabulary relating to justification is most often “dikaiow”

which means “to justify.” It denotes God’s powerful, cosmic and universal action in
affecting a change in the situation between sinful humanity and God, by which God is
72
Cung Hnin
able to acquit and vindicate believers, setting them in a right and faithful relation to
himself.221 Clearly, Paul uses the term significantly more often than does anyone else
and equally significantly it is an important category in Romans. The word is a
forensic or legal term with the meaning “to acquit”, “to declare not guilty”, or “to
make righteous.”222
Justification by faith is of central importance to Paul’s conception of
Christianity or the Gospel, though some biblical scholars have denied it. Among those
who adopt this position are G. Bornkamn, H. Conzelmann, E. Kasemann and K.
Kertelge, and their position has a strong historical association with Martin Luther. 223
Paul’s thought on justification addresses the fundamental question of how sinful
human beings can find favour or acceptance in the sight of righteous God. 224 To Paul
the only solution is by means of having faith in Christ Jesus.
Justification, then, is about reconciliation with God, and membership in God’s
covenant community. For Paul, this takes place by God’s initiative and grace, to
which humans respond in faith- trust, obedience, and public confession. Faith is not
merely a onetime act of response to the gospel but an ongoing covenantal relationship
with God that is itself a kind of crucifixion and resurrection, so that the covenantal
obligations can now be fulfilled.225 He also clearly states his doctrine of justification
in Phil. 3:9, “… not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but
one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.”
Paul is quite definite that, “no one will be justified in God’s sight by works of
law” (3: 20; cf. 4:2). Justification, on the contrary, is God’s good gift: people are
‘justified freely by his grace’ (3: 24). Justification by faith is grounded in the vicarious
death of Christ, so too in the pronouncement on reconciliation, the death of Christ is
221
A. E. McGrath, “Justification” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne
and Ralph P. Martin (Leicester: IVP, 1993), 518. Hereafter cited as A. E. McGrath, “Justification” in
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters…,
222
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 145. Hereafter cited
as L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans…, So also in D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St.
Paul(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 157-159.
223
A. E. McGrath, “Justification” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters…, 522.
224
Ibid., 523.
225
Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
2004), 138.
73
Cung Hnin
brought up again and again as the foundation on which or the way in which this
reconciliation takes place. In Christ God shows his vindicatory righteousness in the
present time and thus justifies those who have faith in Jesus (3: 25, 26), and so also,
“God made him openly to be a means of propitiation in his blood” (3:25).226 The cross
plays a necessary part in justification, for “we have now been justified by his blood
(5:9). He repeats the truth that justification is brought about by God in Christ (3:26;
8:30, 33), and this is, of course, implied when justification is used with reference to
grace or to faith. Paul stresses faith so much in justification because it is the only
means whereby the sinner appropriates the gift of God.227 So in Paul, faith is the basis
for that relationship of dependence on and oneness with Christ which characterizes
the believers. God has done the entire necessary thing for human’s salvation in Christ,
so the believer’s status depends on the relationship in which he/she stands with
Christ.228 Therefore, whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by
the law and oppressed by the burden of his/her sins; he/she may be pronounced
righteous before God on the account of his/her faith.229 Christ’s salvafic work through
his death and resurrection is sufficient for anyone’s justification, who has responded
to it in faith.230
So it is so clear to Paul that justification has always been by faith, apart from
the law (3: 21, 28), in Christ Jesus (3: 22, 24). Salvation and justification are apart
from the law. They are given to all believers as a free gift through grace, granted in
Christ Jesus.231 So faith in Christ is enough and the only means to be right with God.
4.3. The Significance of No,moj in Relation to Justification By Faith:
226
Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology translated by John Richard De Witt (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1975), 186- 187.
227
228
Roger Bowen, A Guide to Romans…, xvi.
229
Martin Luther, “Death to the Law”, in The Writings of St. Paul edited by Wayne A. Meeks (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1972), 237.
230
Robert L. Reymond, Paul Missionary Theologian (Finland: WS Bookwell, 2002), 385- 386.
231
John MacArthur, Jr., Justified By Faith (Panorama: Word of Grace Communications, 1984), 1.
74
Cung Hnin
Having discussed above, Paul is so clear in his teaching that justification has
always been on the basis of faith in Christ Jesus and never on the observance of the
law nor on the ground of good works prescribed by the laws. No human being can be
righteous with God on the ground of his/her own work. Having dependent fully and
having faith in Christ’s saving activity is the only means to be right with God. Christ
has done all the necessary things for justification and the only thing remain for human
is to response in faith to what Christ has done for all. Law by no means is the way to
God and faith in Christ alone is in all means the only way to God and to be right with
God.
Such is Paul’s theology that in order to reach the Jews, and also Gentiles, with
the Gospel of Christ, he has to puncture first their boasting on the law, as a guarantee
for their salvation, which hinders them to accept Christ as the Messiah and as the
Saviour of the world. The Law hides the value of Christ’s vicarious death and
conquest upon the sin and death through his resurrection. In other words, the Jews are
unable to see the importance of Christ sacrificial death for the salvation of all who
have faith in him, because of their boasting and confidence of the law they have,
believing that the law they have and observe give them special privilege and can
ultimate save them. So for Paul, to teach his theology on justification by faith in
Christ effectively, he must puncture first the misguided understanding of Jews on the
Law and their false confidence on it, which hinders them to accept the Gospel. It is
necessary for him to apply the method of “Remove the misguided and wrong concept,
and then implant the truth.” This is in fact the reason why Paul emphasises so much
on the Law - proving its inability to merit anyone’s justification, it is a necessary
preparation for him to do as he did, if at all he wants his doctrine of justification by
faith- as God’s free gift- to be accepted by the Romans and especially by the Jews. So
having such a clear conviction, he teaches exhaustively on the Law systematically and
puncturing the false and misguided boasting and confidence on the Law by the Jews
as follows as a preparation for his gospel.
75
Cung Hnin
First of all, Paul began to puncture the false confidence on the law by the
Jews, which, he thinks is the hindrance for them to accept Christ from accepting him
as the Messiah and Saviour of all. He starts with the framework of the universality of
sin (1:18- 3:20), stating succinctly that “all people both Jews (within law) and
Gentiles (without law) are equally under the power of sin. All are accountable to sin,
even Gentiles without laws, yet having laws through the revelation of God through
creation are “without excuse” (1:20) form their sins. And also or even more so is to
the Jews, having the laws yet transgressing it, are equally accountable to God for their
sin and are as much subject to sin’s power as are Gentiles because the possession of
the law is not a safeguard (2:12-16) and is quite insufficient to provide for release
from sin’s power. So he denied any false distinction between the Jews and Gentiles on
the ground of having and not having the law arguing so clearly that having the law or
even observing the law give no advantage and distinction as far as the sinning life is
concerned, and sin in both case will be condemned.(2:20).
After puncturing the Jewish idea that the law is a safeguard for them and
reminding the universality of sins, he now turns to attack the Jewish false confidence
on circumcision and national pride that those can guarantee their salvation and put
them in privileged status (2:17-29). He attacks the false confidence on circumcision
asserting that circumcision is not sufficient to secure the salvation of anyone who is
the transgressor of the law and rejects Christ and circumcision in such case is an
empty sign and a meaningless talisman. Circumcision does not merit no one’s
salvation and its lacks does not bar anyone’s salvation. In fact, one also has to
remember that the Jews are not against the Gentiles becoming Christian but they insist
them to undergo circumcision and keep the law in addition to their faith in Christ. So
Paul was totally against such a false insistence to observe the external rite which is of
no value. It is unnecessary for the Gentiles to become a Jew to be saved. Having faith
in Christ is sufficient for his/her salvation, and rejecting Christ while boasting on the
law and being a people of circumcision according to the law is the greatest sin they
can ever commit. The coming of Christ has opened a new epoch in the salvation
history and the law and the prophets are fulfilled (Mt. 5:17) and are removed from
76
Cung Hnin
their mediatory role. For Paul, the coming and vicarious death of Christ is revelatory,
representative, redemptive and also paradigmatic. The coming of Jesus alters the
position and significance of the law. Possession of the law or strict observance of the
law or being circumcised according to the law has no value and meaning at all if one
rejects Christ insofar as one’s justification is concerned. That is the reason why in fact
he taught the law as negatively as he did, proving its inability to merit anyone’s
justification, so that he could win his kinsmen, the Jews, through presenting Christ as
the only means to be right with God.
After proving the law’s inability to merit anyone’s justification, now he
forthrightly develops his great thesis, “Justification by Faith” (3: 21-4:25). In
responding to the query, how a person can be saved or justified, Paul clearly answered
“through faith in Christ” and “not by the law.” This doctrine is developed against
rabbinical doctrine of “Justification by work”- that a man could be justified on the
grounds of his performance of works of the law. He denounces outrightly by asserting
that justification is ‘not of works, but faith in Christ Jesus’ (3:20, 21). In the now time,
the justifying activity of God is attained without any contribution from work of law
(3:21) but only by faith in Christ and it is extended to all. He pours out the fact that all
on the one hand have sinned but on the other hand all who have faith in Christ Jesus
will be justified, which is the way of God’s saving sinners.
Paul also makes it very clear that there is no room for boasting at all because
one is justified purely on the ground of faith as an outcome of God’s gracious gift,
apart from one’s contribution by the work of law (3:27-30). Even Abraham, the
spiritual father, is justified by faith, apart from his own contribution (Rom. 4). So one
has to depend wholly on God’s gracious power which is revealed through Christ for
his/her justification from the start to the end. For God is one and of all and has only
one type of judgement and justification for all. There is no partiality at all in God’s
judgement and justifying activities. God sent his son Jesus Christ for the salvation of
all without partiality, and all who accept him in faith are justified and who rejects him
are condemned. So in the now time, observance of the law is not the way to God but
having faith in Christ is the only way to be right with God.
77
Cung Hnin
To enforce his doctrine on justification by faith he even goes up to employing

the analogy of marriage (Rom. 7) in order that one might be put in new relationship
with Christ. His main aim of departure here is to teach that the coming of Christ has
set all the believers free from the bondage and condemnation of the law, proving from
marriage analogy that the woman whose husband dies is free from the marriage law
and free to start a new life with a new man (7:1-6). Being freed form the bondage of
law, believers are free to start new life with Christ by faith which will ultimately result
in their justification.
As seen above, Paul talks so much about the law negatively, that one may
think that he seeks to nullify the law. But one has to remember that Paul’s target is not
to attack and nullify the law itself but to puncture the false confidence on the law and
misguided ideas and interpretation of the law by the Jews, which hinders them from
accepting Christ, which is also a necessary preparation for his gospel to be accepted
readily. He only attacks and punctures the fatal error of his kinsmen after the flesh, the
Jews; to think that they could establish their own righteousness by observing the law.
But he never attacks the law itself and renders it as sin itself or sinful, evil and void.
Paul on the contrary affirms the continuing role and usefulness of the law that the
gospel or his teaching on justification by faith sets the law on a proper basis and
establishes it on its true foundation as a revelation of God than abolishing, because
Christ is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets (Mt. 5: 17). In other words, Christ
through his death has fulfilled all the demands of the law (cf. 8:4). And the believers’
faith in Christ in turn provides for the full satisfaction of the demands of the law and
meets the demands of God’s law.
So the law in any rate is still good, just and spiritual even in the new epoch.
One should not hold the view that God gave the law to condemn human first and
provides the means of salvation through the means of faith. God’s intention of giving
the law is good, and is to benefit men and is meant to be obeyed. But sin snatches
away such a good thing as law from God and use as its tool to achieve its fatal and
deathly purposes. So God send Christ as the solution to such human’s problem. The
78
Cung Hnin
law is not to be blamed or branded as sin but the blame is to be laid on sin’s door. It
was sin which exploits such a good thing as law to destroy men.
The law, however, still plays a very important role in justification as a
reminding/pointing role of human’s sinfulness. The entrance of the law is the
beginning of the realization of sin (7: 9-11) and the need of God’s gracious power.
Before the law comes, human are not aware of their wrong doing so also their need
for a saviour. But the law showed them their wrong thoughts and deeds (7: 7, 9)
which are to be condemned, so the realization of their need of Christ fro their
salvation also came.
So the law in any rate is holy, valid –not void and obsolete-, just, good and
beneficial fore men and women even in the new epoch since it intends to benefit them
in various dimensions, by reminding their sinful nature and constant wrong doings, by
helping them to live worthy of their calling to be God’s children, by giving a moral
standard life and also by validating or integrating their faith in Jesus Christ, in spite of
its connection with the sins and its inability to merit anyone’s justification. So the
believers even in the new era still obey the law but not as means to gain life but as the
result of new life which God has graciously given to them through faith in Christ
Jesus. In other words, the Christians still live in obedience to the law, but not in merit
from it.
4.4. Conclusion:
So one can come to conclude with clear understanding that Paul only corrects
the misguided understanding of the law by typical Jews, but not render the law void
and obsolete and he is not at all in any rate antinomian nor anti-Torah nor anti-Jewish
maker. He did as he did so that the gospel of crucified Christ he preaches will have
prepared place in the heart of all and will be readily accepted by all the people. The
whole research can be summarised in one sentence as, “Paul removes the false
confidence on the law and misguided understanding of the law from the heart of the
people and planted the gospel of salvation which is to be attained by having faith in
79
Cung Hnin
Christ Jesus.” But this is the candid confession of the researcher: It is so much to be
regretted that his positive teaching on the law is too little and unclear that the
researcher is still left without being able to balance or bridge the two-sidedness of his
teachings on the law as satisfactorily as intended.
Bibliography:
Primary Source:
Aland, Barbara, et al. Ed. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition.
Stuttgart: Duetsche Biblegesellschaft, UBS, 1998.
Secondary Source
The New Revised Standard Version. USA: World Bible Publishers Inc. 1990.
Dictionaries
80
Cung Hnin
Moo, D.J. “Law I: Gospels” in The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by
Daniel G. Reid.Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004, 675.
------------. “Law” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green
and Scot McKnight. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992, 450.
Gutbrod, “Nomoj” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV. Edited by

Gerhard Kitted. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969, 1023.
Greengus, Samuel. “Law” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary V.4. Edited by David Noel
Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 242.
----------------------. “Law in the O.T” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.

Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976, 532.
Harrison, R.K. “Law in the Old Testament” in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, V.III. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 1986, 77.
McGrath, A. E. “Justification” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by

Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Leicester: IVP, 1993, 518.
Schreiner, T. R. “Law” in New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Illinois:

Inter Varsity Press, 1997, 674.
Wenham, G.J. “Law” in New Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Illinois:
Inter Varsity Press, 1997, 673.
Selman, M. J. “Law” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T.

Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2003, 503.
Theilman, “Law II: Paul” in the IVP Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by
Daniel G. Reid (Leicester: IVP, 2004), 687.
Esser, H.H. “Nomoj” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

V.2. Edited by Colin Brown.Michigan: The Paternoster Press, 1986, 443.
Gerstrer, J.H. “Law in the New Testament ” in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, V.III. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 1986, 90.
81
Cung Hnin
Hubner, H. “no,moj” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament V.2. Edited by

Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
company, 2000, 473.
Commentaries
Black, Matthew. The New Century Bible Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981.
Berkemeyer, William C. and William A. Dudde. Eds. Paul’s Gospel. Philadelphia:

Lutheran church Press, 1967.
Brown, Raymond E. S. S. Ed. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Bangalore:

Theological Publication of India, 2000.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1973.
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary. Secundrabad: OM Books, 2001.
Dunn, James D. G. Word Biblical Commentary, V. 38, Romans 1-8. Edited by Bruce
M. Metzger, at al. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
Elwell, Walter A. Ed. Baker Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1989.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Whole Bible. USA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.
Keck, Leander E. at al. The New Interpreter’s Bible V.X. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1994.
Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspectives: Second Thought on the Origin of
Paul’s Gospel.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans in The New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1996.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1992.
Moule, Handley C. G. The Epistle to the Romans.London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd.
82
Cung Hnin
Newell, William R. Romans: Verse by Verse. Chicago: Grace Publications, 1943.
Picirilli, Robert E. Paul the Apostle. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. The International Critical Commentary on

the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1980.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953.
Wilson, Geoffrey B. Romans. Edinburgh: The banner of Truth Trust, 1984.
Books
Bowen, Roger. A Guide to Romans. Delhi: ISPCK, 1994.
Carroll, B.H. Studies in Romans. Nashville: the Sunday School Board, 1935.
Cullmann, O. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London:
SPCK, 1990
Gine, Pratap Chandra. Nomoj in context: Philo, Galatians and the Bangali Bible.
Delhi: ISPCK, 2001.
Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 2004.
Haller, W. The Rise of Puritanism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1072,

87.
Hubner. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1984.
Jensen, Irving L. Romans: A Self-Study Guide. Chicago: Moody Press, 1990.
Lake, K. The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. London: Rivingtons, 1919.
Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan and Co.,
Limited, 1902.
83
Cung Hnin
MacArthur, John Jr. Justified By Faith. Panorama: Word of Grace Communications,

1984.
Meeks, Wayne A. Ed. The Writings of St. Paul. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
Inc., 1972.
Rao, O. M. Paul and Romans. Delhi: ISPCK, 2003.
Reymond, Robert L. Paul Missionary Theologian. Finland: WS Bookwell, 2002.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard

De Witt. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1975.
Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.
Whiteley, D. E. H. The Theology of St. Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
84

Cungte&#39;s Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cungte&#39;s Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cungte&#39;s Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Significance of No,moj in Romans in Relation to Justification by Faith

3.3. Rom. 3:21- 4:25: Justification By Faith, Not By Law:-

3.3.2. Exegetical analysis

3.3.2.1. The Issue

3.3.2.2. Paul’s Response

3.3.2.2.1. By Faith in Christ Jesus, Apart from the Law (3:21-26)

3.3.2.2.2. By Faith Alone (3:27-30)

3.3.2.2.3. Justification by Faith Establishes the Law (3:31)

3.3.2.2.4. By Faith alone: Elaboration with Respect to Abraham (4:13-22)

3.4. Rom. 7:1-25: Freedom from Bondage to the Law:

3.3.2. Exegetical Analysis

3.3.2.1. The Issue

3.4.2.2. Paul’s Response

3.4.2.2. Released from the Law, Joined to Christ (7:1-6)

3.4.2.2.2. The Law, However, Is Holy, Just and Good (7:7-13)

Significance of No,moj in Relation to Justification By Faith

4.2. Paul’s Teaching on Justification

4.3. The Significance of No,moj in Relation to Justification By Faith

The Purpose of the Study:

Importance of the Study

The present study is important for a better understanding of Paul’s teaching on

Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study is limited to no,moj as understood by Paul and

The methodology applied in this research is literary and exegetical analysis, on

Structure of the Research

THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS ON THE NO,MOS THROUGHOUT THE

1.1. Law in the Ancient Near East: -

government.13 So the laws, in general, in Old Testament are religious in nature

1.2. Law in the Old Testament: -

1.2.1. The Law in Ancient Israel: -

1.2.2. The Attitude of the Prophets towards the Law: -

1.2.3. The Deuteronomic Understanding of the Law: -

Deuteronomy is Greek for ‘Second Law’ and it is a series of sermons by

Deuteronomy contains a definite view of the law of Yahweh, which is

1.2.4. The Law in the Post-Exilic Period: -

The historical presentation according to Deuteronomy and Chronicles is an

1.3. Νοµοσ in the New Testament: -

1.3.1. Jesus and the Νοµοσ in the Gospels: -

In the proclamation of Jesus according to the Gospels affirmation and

1.3.1.1. Jesus’ Negation of the No,moj : −

Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man, but

1.3.1.2 Jesus’ Affirmation of the No,moj :−

Hereby the law is genuinely established and fulfilled by Christ, though it is

1.3.1.3. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the No,moj: -

1.3.2. The No,moj in other New Testament Writings: -

No doubt is today entertained regarding the author of this letter.51The letter

If Paul as a Jew and his Hellenistic background are important to understand

An appreciation of his background is essential for an understanding of Paul’s

As to place of origin, the key factor is the information provided by Paul

Ambrosiaster is probably also right, when he identifies the synagogues as the

2.3. The Occasion and the Purpose of the Letter:

2.3.1. A Missionary Purpose:-

2.3.2 An Apologetic Purpose:

Romans is neither purely a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s

understanding of the gospel (1:16-17), Paul surely wished to gain acceptance of

2.3.3. A Pastoral Purpose:-

2.4 The Literary Form of Romans:

Bultmann compared Romans to the “diatribe” an argumentative genre particularly

Cungte's Thesis

Cungte's Thesis

Cungte's Thesis