Romans 3:19-20

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under ¹  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him ²  by the works of the law, ³  for through the law comes ⁴  the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4:15

4:15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression ⁵  either.

Romans 6:14

6:14 For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 7:5-13

7:5 For when we were in the flesh, ⁶  the sinful desires, ⁷  aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body ⁸  to bear fruit for death. 7:6 But now we have been released from the law, because we have died ⁹  to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. ¹⁰ 

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I ¹¹  would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else ¹²  if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” ¹³  7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. ¹⁴  For apart from the law, sin is dead. 7:9 And I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment sin became alive 7:10 and I died. So ¹⁵  I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life brought death! ¹⁶  7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it I died. ¹⁷  7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

John 15:22

15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. ¹⁸  But they no longer have any excuse for their sin.

John 15:2

15:2 He takes away ¹⁹  every branch that does not bear ²⁰  fruit in me. He ²¹  prunes ²²  every branch that bears ²³  fruit so that it will bear more fruit.

Colossians 3:7-9

3:7 You also lived your lives ²⁴  in this way at one time, when you used to live among them. 3:8 But now, put off all such things ²⁵  as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth. 3:9 Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with its practices

Galatians 3:19-25

3:19 Why then was the law given? ²⁶  It was added ²⁷  because of transgressions, ²⁸  until the arrival of the descendant ²⁹  to whom the promise had been made. It was administered ³⁰  through angels by an intermediary. ³¹  3:20 Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one. ³²  3:21 Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God? ³³  Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ³⁴  3:22 But the scripture imprisoned ³⁵  everything and everyone ³⁶  under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness ³⁷  of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.

Sons of God Are Heirs of Promise

3:23 Now before faith ³⁸  came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners ³⁹  until the coming faith would be revealed. 3:24 Thus the law had become our guardian ⁴⁰  until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous ⁴¹  by faith. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. ⁴² 

[3:19]  ¹ tn Grk “in,” “in connection with.”

[3:20]  ² sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

[3:20]  ³ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

[3:20]  ⁴ tn Grk “is.”

[4:15]  ⁵ tn Or “violation.”

[7:5]  ⁶ tn That is, before we were in Christ.

[7:5]  ⁷ tn Or “sinful passions.”

[7:5]  ⁸ tn Grk “our members”; the words “of our body” have been supplied to clarify the meaning.

[7:6]  ⁹ tn Grk “having died.” The participle ἀποθανόντες (apoqanonte") has been translated as a causal adverbial participle.

[7:6]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”

[7:7]  ¹¹ sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

[7:7]  ¹² tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”

[7:7]  ¹³ sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.

[7:8]  ¹⁴ tn Or “covetousness.”

[7:10]  ¹⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “So” to indicate the result of the statement in the previous verse. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[7:10]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “and there was found in/for me the commandment which was for life – this was for death.”

[7:11]  ¹⁷ tn Or “and through it killed me.”

[15:22]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “they would not have sin” (an idiom).

[15:2]  ¹⁹ tn Or “He cuts off.”

[15:2]  ²⁰ tn Or “does not yield.”

[15:2]  ²¹ tn Grk “And he”; the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has been omitted in the translation in keeping with the tendency in contemporary English style to use shorter sentences.

[15:2]  ²² tn Or “trims”; Grk “cleanses” (a wordplay with “clean” in v. 3). Καθαίρει (kaqairei) is not the word one would have expected here, but it provides the transition from the vine imagery to the disciples – there is a wordplay (not reproducible in English) between αἴρει (airei) and καθαίρει in this verse. While the purpose of the Father in cleansing his people is clear, the precise means by which he does so is not immediately obvious. This will become clearer, however, in the following verse.

[15:2]  ²³ tn Or “that yields.”

[3:7]  ²⁴ tn Grk “you also walked.” The verb περιπατέω (peripatew) is commonly used in the NT to refer to behavior or conduct of one’s life (L&N 41.11).

[3:8]  ²⁵ tn The Greek article with τὰ πάντα (ta panta) is anaphoric, referring to the previous list of vices, and has been translated here as “all such things.”

[3:19]  ²⁶ tn Grk “Why then the law?”

[3:19]  ²⁷ tc For προσετέθη (proseteqh) several Western mss have ἐτέθη (eteqh, “it was established”; so D* F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec). The net effect of this reading, in conjunction with the largely Western reading of πράξεων (praxewn) for παραβάσεων (parabasewn), seems to be a very positive assessment of the law. But there are compelling reasons for rejecting this reading: (1) externally, it is provincial and relatively late; (2) internally: (a) transcriptionally, there seems to be a much higher transcriptional probability that a scribe would try to smooth over Paul’s harsh saying here about the law than vice versa; (b) intrinsically: [1] Paul has already argued that the law came after the promise (vv. 15-18), indicating, more than likely, its temporary nature; [2] the verb “was added” in v. 19 (προσετέθη) is different from the verb in v. 15 (ἐπιδιατάσσεται, epidiatassetai); virtually all exegetes recognize this as an intentional linguistic shift on Paul’s part in order not to contradict his statement in v. 15; [3] the temper of 3:1–4:7 is decidedly against a positive statement about the Torah’s role in Heilsgeschichte.

[3:19]  ²⁸ tc παραδόσεων (paradosewn; “traditions, commandments”) is read by D*, while the vast majority of witnesses read παραβάσεων (parabasewn, “transgressions”). D’s reading makes little sense in this context. πράξεων (praxewn, “of deeds”) replaces παραβάσεων in Ì⁴⁶ F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec. The wording is best taken as going with νόμος (nomo"; “Why then the law of deeds?”), as is evident by the consistent punctuation in the later witnesses. But such an expression is unpauline and superfluous; it was almost certainly added by some early scribe(s) to soften the blow of Paul’s statement.

[3:19]  ²⁹ tn Grk “the seed.” See the note on the first occurrence of the word “descendant” in 3:16.

[3:19]  ³⁰ tn Or “was ordered.” L&N 31.22 has “was put into effect” here.

[3:19]  ³¹ tn Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesith"; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms.

[3:20]  ³² tn The meaning of this verse is disputed. According to BDAG 634 s.v. μεσίτης, “It prob. means that the activity of an intermediary implies the existence of more than one party, and hence may be unsatisfactory because it must result in a compromise. The presence of an intermediary would prevent attainment, without any impediment, of the purpose of the εἶς θεός in giving the law.” See also A. Oepke, TDNT 4:598-624, esp. 618-19.

[3:21]  ³³ tc The reading τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “of God”) is well attested in א A C D (F G read θεοῦ without the article) Ψ 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co. However, Ì⁴⁶ B d Ambst lack the words. Ì⁴⁶ and B perhaps should not to be given as much weight as they normally are, since the combination of these two witnesses often produces a secondary shorter reading against all others. In addition, one might expect that if the shorter reading were original other variants would have crept into the textual tradition early on. But 104 (a.d. 1087) virtually stands alone with the variant τοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Cristou, “of Christ”). Nevertheless, if τοῦ θεοῦ were not part of the original text, it is the kind of variant that would be expected to show up early and often, especially in light of Paul’s usage elsewhere (Rom 4:20; 2 Cor 1:20). A slight preference should be given to the τοῦ θεοῦ over the omission. NA²⁷ rightly places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

[3:21]  ³⁴ tn Or “have been based on the law.”

[3:22]  ³⁵ tn Or “locked up.”

[3:22]  ³⁶ tn Grk “imprisoned all things” but τὰ πάντα (ta panta) includes people as part of the created order. Because people are the emphasis of Paul’s argument ( “given to those who believe” at the end of this verse.), “everything and everyone” was used here.

[3:22]  ³⁷ tn Or “so that the promise could be given by faith in Jesus Christ to those who believe.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

[3:23]  ³⁸ tn Or “the faithfulness [of Christ] came.”

[3:23]  ³⁹ tc Instead of the present participle συγκλειόμενοι (sunkleiomenoi; found in Ì⁴⁶ א A B D* F G P Ψ 33 1739 al), C D¹ 0176 0278 Ï have the perfect συγκεκλεισμένοι (sunkekleismenoi). The syntactical implication of the perfect is that the cause or the means of being held in custody was confinement (“we were held in custody [by/because of] being confined”). The present participle of course allows for such options, but also allows for contemporaneous time (“while being confined”) and result (“with the result that we were confined”). Externally, the perfect participle has little to commend it, being restricted for the most part to later and Byzantine witnesses.

[3:24]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “disciplinarian,” “custodian,” or “guide.” According to BDAG 748 s.v. παιδαγωγός, “the man, usu. a slave…whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth…to and from school and to superintend his conduct gener.; he was not a ‘teacher’ (despite the present mng. of the derivative ‘pedagogue’…When the young man became of age, the π. was no longer needed.” L&N 36.5 gives “guardian, leader, guide” here.

[3:24]  ⁴¹ tn Or “be justified.”

[3:25]  ⁴² tn See the note on the word “guardian” in v. 24. The punctuation of vv. 25, 26, and 27 is difficult to represent because of the causal connections between each verse. English style would normally require a comma either at the end of v. 25 or v. 26, but in so doing the translation would then link v. 26 almost exclusively with either v. 25 or v. 27; this would be problematic as scholars debate which two verses are to be linked. Because of this, the translation instead places a period at the end of each verse. This preserves some of the ambiguity inherent in the Greek and does not exclude any particular causal connection.