What does it mean that knowledge of sin comes through the law?

Explanation:

We can detect what it means that knowledge of sin comes through the law by considering what Paul says about the law in his letter to the Galatians. In Galatians 3:19–25 he explains that there are three aspects to the law. First, God never intended the law to bring about righteousness (Galatians 3:21). Second, the law was given as a supervisory guardian until the coming of Christ (Galatians 3:23–25). Third, the law’s function is to confine everyone under sin (Galatians 3:22). Given that the law was not intended to bring righteousness, was meant as a guardian, and confines everyone under sin, we can detect what it means that the law brings knowledge of sin. The law brings knowledge of sin in the sense that makes one consciously aware that one is a sinner.⁴

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, from Paul’s explanation of the function of the law in Galatians 3:19–25, it does not follow that through the law comes conscious awareness of sin. In other words, while the notion that through the law comes conscious awareness of sin is consistent with Galatians 3:19–25, so are other interpretations. For example, it could be that through the law comes practical knowledge of how to sin. That is, the law describes activities that are sinful, so that by knowing the law, one learns to sin.⁵ That the law teaches one how to sin is consistent with the fact that the law does not bring about righteousness, it played a supervisory function, and it confined all to sin.

Response to counterargument:

The notion that the law teaches one to sin is not consistent with the fact that the law played a supervisory role, or that it confines all humans to sin. If the law teaches one to sin, and sin is condemned by God, how is the law playing a supervisory role? On the other hand, if through the law comes conscious awareness that one is under the power of sin, this might restrict one’s behaviour in particular ways as a guardian restricts one’s behaviour, even though this restricted behaviour is not enough to save.

Further, if the law teaches one how to sin, how does the law confine all to sin? For anyone who is ignorant of the law, including the Gentiles, would not be sinners because they would not know how to sin. On the other hand, that the law brings conscious awareness of sin is consistent with the fact that the law confines everyone to sin, in the sense that anyone who considers the law will see that they are a sinner. For the rules outlined in the law demonstrate God’s unchanging standard, which humans are never able to attain.⁶

Explanation:

When Paul says that the law brings knowledge of sin, we can understand what this means by considering what he has already written in Romans 1:18–3:18. In particular, Paul has written that both Gentiles and Jews have been found guilty for transgressing the law.⁷ Given that the Gentiles and Jews are guilty for transgressing the law, we can detect what it means that the law brings knowledge of sin. The law reveals to those who have the law what they ought to do, while they simultaneously recognize that they are guilty because they are not able to follow the law.⁸

Counterargument:

According to this argument, Paul is saying that since both the Gentiles and Jews are found guilty by the law, when Paul says the law brings knowledge of sin, he means the law makes one aware that they sin. The problem is that Paul does not say that the law makes the Gentiles guilty of sin. Rather, he specifically has in mind the fact that the Mosaic law brings knowledge of sin to the Jews. We can detect this because this section of his letter is directed to those under the law, the Jews (Romans 3:19). And he says that by works of the law, no one will be justified, also referring to the Mosaic law (Romans 3:20). Thus, Paul is saying that the Mosaic law brings knowledge of sin, whatever that means, not that the law makes the Gentile and the Jew cognitively aware that they are guilty of sin.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that the law makes the Gentiles and Jews guilty in the sense that the Gentiles were aware of the Mosaic law. Rather, Paul has explained that the natural law of their conscience makes the Gentiles aware of their guilt (Romans 3:15). Still, the guilt that results from the law of conscience is consistent with the guilt that results from knowing the Mosaic law. Of course, that the Mosaic law and the natural law convict the Jews and Gentiles that they are sinners, implies that through the law comes knowledge of sin. In the case of the Jews, the law is a standard they cannot keep, while for the Gentiles, their conscience convicts them of their guilt.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. We know that the law is good because it is from God, but we also know that no one is able to keep it because all are under sin. Thus, we can detect that the law, rather than save, simply makes one aware that they fall short of God’s standard.

Explanation:

Paul says that through the law comes knowledge of sin. He explains in Romans 7:7–11 what it means that the law brings knowledge of sin. He says that he would not have known what sin is unless the law told him, and he uses the example of coveting to make his point. He writes that he would not have known what coveting was had the law not said, You shall not covet (Romans 7:7). He goes on to explain that sin seized the opportunity through the commandment and produced in him all kinds of covetousness (Romans 7:8). In other words, the law does not teach Paul what sin is, but it teaches him how to sin.⁹

Counterargument:

According to this argument, in Romans 7:7–11 Paul explains that the law teaches him how to sin, which is what he means in Romans 3:20 when he says that through the law comes knowledge of sin. The problem with this argument is that in Romans 7:7–11 Paul does not say that the law teaches him how to sin. Rather, he says that he would not know what sin is without the law. But not knowing what sin is without the law is not to say that the law taught Paul how to sin. Rather, he could mean that he did not know what sin is until he read that coveting was forbidden. Once he understood that coveting is forbidden, he understood that he was a sinner because he could not help but covet.

Explanation:

Paul writes that through the law comes knowledge of sin. Now, there is a difference between theoretical and practical knowledge where theoretical knowledge has to do with knowing what something is, while practical knowledge has to do with the experience of doing something. When Paul says that through the law comes knowledge of sin, he means practical experiential knowledge. Paul has this same practical meaning in mind in 2 Corinthians 5:11 when he writes that the Corinthians know the fear of the Lord, and in 2 Corinthians 5:21 when he says Jesus knew no sin.¹⁰

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that while it is correct that the term knowledge can be used in various ways, this does nothing to show the way Paul in fact uses the term in Romans 3:20. That is, in order to determine which of the multiple possible meanings an author intends, one must consider the context. Now, based on the context, it would be quite strange for Paul to say that the law taught him how to sin in a practical sense. For in Romans 2:13, Paul explicitly says that the doers of the law will be justified before God. So if the doers of the law are justified before God, how can Paul also hold that the law teaches him how to sin?

The weakness of this view is that it does not consider the overall purpose of the law as expounded in other passages in Scripture. Beginning with the Old Testament, we know that Scripture has a lot to say about the law and its purpose. Jesus refines our thinking about the law, and Paul aligns with Jesus’ teachings. So our interpretation of Romans 3:20 ought to be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Unfortunately, this view seems to focus on Romans 3:20 and ignore everything else Scripture says about the law.