What Does He Mean? 1
What Does He Mean? An Examination of Paul’s Discussion of the Law in Romans
Laura Selivanoff
Union College
Submitted for Expository Writing Award
2 May 2011
What Does He Mean? 2
What Does He Mean? An Examination of Paul’s Discussion of the Law in Romans
Although the day was far from over, darkness prevailed. Several hours ago, Golgotha was
teeming with both spectators and Roman guards as three prisoners were crucified. Now, most
had departed from the gruesome scene and the silhouette of the three crosses could hardly be
distinguished amid the black cloud that had settled around them. A small group of women were
huddled to one side, drying their tears and anxiously scanning the dark skies for the signs of an
approaching storm. But all was strangely calm. A Roman centurion kicked a small clump of
earth, muttering under his breath before glancing up at the crucified man in the center—a
Nazarene who was known by his friends as Jesus. While he could not see the man’s face through
the thick darkness that encircled the crucified men, he could still hear the heavy, labored
breathing. He knew it would probably be hours before they would finally breathe their last
breath. Unexpectedly, a loud cry came from the center cross. “My God, why have you forsaken
me?” called the hoarse voice. The man’s breathing became more rapid. A few who had remained
at the crucifixion site offered Jesus a drink, but he refused. He called out one last time, “It is
finished.” His head dropped to his chest. The “King of the Jews” was dead, crushed by the
weight of sin and separation from his Father.
A Jewish priest was in the temple, preparing to offer the evening sacrifice on the altar.
With knife poised, he was ready to slay the lamb. Just then, a rumbling noise was heard in the
distance and the floor of the temple began to shake. All eyes were drawn to the curtain that
separated the rest of the temple from the Most Holy place. The priest dropped his knife in
surprise. A small tear appeared at the top of the curtain, rending the thick material from top to
bottom. The presence of God dwelling in the Most Holy place was exposed to the world. God
was no longer accessible to only the High Priest of the temple, but to all people of every
What Does He Mean? 3
ethnicity. From now on, He would no longer be contained in a tabernacle, but would send His
Spirit to live in the hearts of those who chose to follow Him. Bleating loudly, the lamb escaped
from the altar and disappeared. It was no longer needed. The ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the
world was offered through the death, and eventual resurrection, of the Lamb of God—Jesus
Christ.
The death and resurrection of Christ and the founding of Christianity left Judaism forever
changed. No longer were Jews the chosen race, set apart from the rest of the world. Jesus had
come and fulfilled the prophecies. Now anyone, anywhere, anytime could accept Jesus as Savior
and receive the Holy Spirit and the promise of eternal life. Yet, this new approach and the
removal of segregation between the Jews and the Gentiles aroused questions and debates,
especially among the early Christian Jews, about the role of the law in the plan of salvation.
Could the uncircumcised Gentiles be saved? Did not God require some obedience and sacrifice
from His followers? Was the Old Testament law really abolished at the cross?
In the book of Romans, Paul discusses the condition of the law within early Christianity,
emphasizing the ethnic issues between the Jews, who possessed the law, and the Gentiles, who
did not. Many scholars consider Paul’s discussion of the law in Romans to be the most
challenging and debatable issue in the Pauline letters because his statements often seem
contradictory. Snodgrass, in his article “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem
of Paul and the Law,” states that Paul’s references to the law seem to be in opposition. On one
hand, in Romans 7:4,6 Paul makes it clear to his readers that they are dead to the law; yet on the
other hand, he insists in Romans 3:31 that the law is not abolished (93). Kuula, in the book The
Law, the Covenant, and God’s Plan, points out that Paul appears to be in conflict when he says
in Romans 2:13 that the “doers of the law will be justified” and later states in Romans 3:20 that
What Does He Mean? 4
“by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified” (91). How are we free from the law, yet still
under its influence?
To better understand Paul’s purpose, and hopefully his reasoning behind such apparently
contradictory arguments, let us take a moment to examine the audience to which Romans was
written. The letter addresses both Jews and Gentiles, and Paul seems to be striving to portray
both ethnic groups as equal citizens in the Kingdom of God. In parts of his letter, he seems to be
attacking the Jews for their self-sufficiency concerning the law and salvation. In his article, “The
Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” Schriener explains that Paul was strongly
opposing the legalism of the Jews (50). Snodgrass describes the situation as exclusivism on the
part of the Jews—because they had received the law first and considered obedience to it of high
importance, they were further ahead in their spiritual journey than the less law-abiding Gentiles
(101). Dunn, in his article, “Yet Once More--’The Works of the Law’: A Response,” notes that
Paul’s terms for Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, reveals a distinction between
the two classes (103). Paul makes it clear that there is tension between those who live by the law
and those who do not—and that tension serves as the focal point in his discussion of the law in
Romans.
Throughout the book of Romans, Paul does not mince words with the Jews. Dunn states
that Paul was dealing with the false belief among the Jews that they were above chastisement
because they possessed law; some believed that judgment would be more favorably bestowed
simply because they were members of God’s chosen race (107). Paul’s arguments intend to
dispel this belief among the Jews—he points out in 2:17-24 that they were actually breaking the
law and he even suggests that the “name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of
[the Jews]” (Romans 2:24). He emphasizes in 2:25-29 that living in disobedience to the law does
What Does He Mean? 5
not result in favor with God. Gosnell notes here that Paul seems to be implying that the Gentiles
who live according to the principles of the law are equal with the Jews who keep the law and
vice versa (259). While the Jews had received God’s favor and had been given the law, Paul
makes it clear that God makes no distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles, the circumcised
and the uncircumcised. He begins his argument that true righteousness occurs within the heart,
not in outward behaviors.
The law, according to Paul, had not brought the Jews closer to God and His principles for
living. Owen, in his article “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense
of the Subjective Genitive”, asserts that the law had not brought righteousness among the Jews—
it only pointed out their erroneous living (556). In Romans 3:20, Paul states that “by the deeds of
the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” But what
of Paul’s earlier statement in 2:13 that the “doers of the law will be justified”? Is that not in
opposition to his statement in 3:20? An important point to notice here is that Paul’s statement in
3:20 shows that the law reveals the presence of sin, and Paul’s discussion between 2:13 and 3:20
shows the sinfulness of the Jews in their neglect to observe the teachings of the law.
Thielman, in his book Paul and the Law, believes that the use of 2:13 is intended to
rebuke the Jews and their belief that they were more righteous than the Gentiles; only those who
actually obey the law, not just know and understand it, are justified (173). In contrast, he
interprets Paul’s argument in 3:20 to state that since no one is truly capable of keeping the law,
no one can be saved only through obedience to the demands of the law (177). In other words,
those who flawlessly adhere to the demands of the law will be saved, yet we are imperfect
humans and it is impossible for us to do perfectly everything the law requires for salvation.
Romans 3:23 says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Jews and Gentiles alike
What Does He Mean? 6
are subject to sin, and therefore both equally transgress the law.
Fortunately, Paul does not leave his readers to bemoan their sinful and hopeless state. In
the following verses, he emphasizes that through the death, resurrection, and abundant grace of
Jesus, we are saved. We cannot be saved through the works of the law; justification is
accomplished only through God’s sacrifice and our faith in Him. This salvation through God’s
works, and not the Jews’ righteousness in the law, Snodgrass asserts that Paul’s conversation
about boasting in 3:27-31 is used to dispel the Jews’ exclusivism mentality (101). No longer are
the Jews in doubt concerning any claims to superiority to the Gentiles because they received the
law. Paul makes it clear that salvation through the law is impossible; only through Jesus and faith
in His name can one be saved. He demonstrates that both the circumcised (the Jews) and the
uncircumcised (the Gentiles) are equally justified if they accept Christ.
Yet, although we now understand that all are equally saved through faith in Jesus, we
might wonder what has become of the law now that Christ has paid the price for our sins and has
given us the promise of eternal life with Him. Rhyne mentions in his book, Faith Establishes the
Law, that Paul’s discussions about justification through faith, and not the law, could lead some to
suppose that the law is not important (26). He responds by arguing that the “law of faith,” which
Paul refers to as the means of justification, and the “law of works,” which Paul says is incapable
of producing justification, are the same—the only difference between them is the attitude in
which they are approached. The “law of works” is perceived as a means of salvation by faithfully
adhering to the law’s demands. The “law of faith,” on the other hand, is the same law viewed
from a perspective of righteousness through faith in Jesus (70). Examined from this perspective,
Paul’s statement in 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the
contrary, we establish the law,” is understood. Paul is not seeking to discard the law, but rather is
What Does He Mean? 7
addressing the attitude toward the law held by many of the early Christian Jews and directing
their attention to salvation through faith and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
However, Thielman poses a problem to the idea of the establishment of the law in Paul’s
writings. He questions why Paul would dismiss the importance of certain aspects of the law, such
as circumcision, if he truly believed in the complete establishment of the law (203). Schreiner
asserts that parts of the law were abolished at Christ’s death on the cross. He suggests that there
are two parts of the law that Paul referred to in Romans: the ritual law and the moral law. He
states that the ritual law, which includes circumcision, the Sabbath, and the food laws, placed a
cultural barrier between the Christian Jews and the Christian Gentiles. This is the law he believes
was abolished at the cross, supporting his belief with Romans 14 and the discussion of all things
being lawful. In contrast, the moral law, which includes such behaviors as adultery, murder,
stealing, and coveting, Schriener argues is distinct from the ritual law because it promotes
behaviors which stem from love. He believes that Paul is clear throughout Romans, but
especially in Romans 13:9, that this law is still valid (59). Gosnell also appears to agree with
Schriener when he notes that Paul does not stress the importance of observing certain days and
eating specific foods because such behaviors do not stem directly from love (268).
Does Paul make such a distinction in Romans? Is one part of the law superior to another?
Westerholm states that there is not agreement among scholars regarding the continuation and
abolishment of certain parts of the law, but notes that this does not necessarily indicate ambiguity
or uncertainty in Paul’s mind (198). Once again, we turn to the context and audience of Romans
to clarify the meaning behind Paul’s sometimes seemingly opposing statements. Rhyne explains
that in Romans 9 and 10, Paul does not say that the Jews are wrong in their desire to live
according to the law; rather, he is cautioning them to avoid trying to live the law without faith in
What Does He Mean? 8
the power of Christ (100). Westerholm presents the idea that when Paul exhorts his audience, he
refers to living in love and faith. But, he notes that when Paul depicts the life of a Christian who
is seeking to live in a way pleasing to God, he or she fulfills the requirements of the law naturally
under the life-changing influence of the Holy Spirit (201). The law itself is neither good nor
bad—it is the approach to it that determines the outcome.
Rhyne points out that the Jews “failed to reach the law because they misunderstood it and
transformed it into a tool of personal achievement” (101). By approaching the law from a
perspective of self-sufficiency and striving for personal gain apart from God, one will inevitably
fail to accomplish the law and receive eternal life; however, by approaching the law from the
perspective of the faith and love of Jesus, one will find that obedience to the law is a natural
result of living under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Viewed from this perspective, Paul’s discussion of “all things being lawful” in Romans
14 does not appear contradictory to the idea that the law is established. Paul is not saying that the
law is dismissed or changed now that Christ has come to redeem us from our sins—he is simply
reiterating that our motivation for right living should not stem from extrinsic sources, such as
justification through the law. Rather, we should live our lives through love and faith in Christ
and allow the details to fall into place. While our salvation does not depend upon our ability to
live in accordance with the demands of the law, living a life dedicated to God will lead us to
obey the law through the power of the Holy Spirit. In Romans 6:1, Paul asks the question, “Shall
we continue in sin that grace may abound?” He replies, “Certainly not!” As Paul explains in
Romans 8:4, the law will be, “fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but
according to the Spirit.” In that way, we can truly say with Paul that Christ is the fulfillment of
the law (Romans 10:4).
What Does He Mean? 9
Works Cited
Dunn, James D. G. “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law’: A Response.” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 99-117. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011.
Gosnell, Peter W. “Law in Romans: Regulation and Instruction.” Novum testamentum 51.3
(2009): 252-271. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr.
2011.
Kuula, Kari. The Law, the Covenant, and God’s Plan. Helsinki: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.
Print.
Owen, Paul. “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the
Subjective Genitive.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126.3 (2007): 553-577. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.
Rhyne, Thomas, C. Faith Establishes the Law. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1981.
Print.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul.” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 35 (1989): 47-74. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.
EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011.
Snodgrass, Klyne. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the
Law.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988): 93-113. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.
The Holy Bible: New King James Version. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. 1996. Print.
Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Print.
Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
What Does He Mean? 10
Publishers, 1998. Print.
What Does He Mean? 11