What does it mean that "where there is no law there is no transgression"?

Explanation:

It is important to understand what Paul means by transgression. The term is generally used to denote knowingly violating a clearly expressed law. ³ For example, in Hebrews 2:2 we read that the message declared by angels, which refers to the Mosaic law, proved reliable, and every transgression received a just retribution. In other words, the Mosaic law was articulated and understood, and those who knowingly violated the commands were justly punished. Paul also uses the term to refer to the initial sin of Adam and Eve. For example, in Romans 5:14 Paul refers to those whose sins are not like the transgression of Adam, referring to the specific violation of Adam. And in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. Given that transgression refers to a specific violation, we can see what Paul means when he says, Where there is no law there is no transgression. He means that where there is no explicit command, such as those found in the Mosaic law, there is no transgression.

Counterargument:

The term transgression is not only used to refer to violations of specific commands. For Paul writes in Galatians 3:19 that the law was added because of transgressions. In other words, because people sinned against God in some indefinite way, the law was added where God explicitly stated his commands for the people. Of course, if transgressions refer to vaguely defined sin before the Mosaic law, then transgressions are not explicit violations of the Mosaic law. So Paul is not saying that where there is no Mosaic law, there is no specific violations of the Mosaic law.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that the only way to understand the term transgression is in terms of disobeying an explicit command. Rather, the argument is that the term could be used in this way, as in Hebrews 2:2, Romans 5:14, and 1 Timothy 2:14, and that Paul uses the term in the same way in Romans 4:15. That is, in Romans 4:15, Paul uses the term transgression to refer to violating an express command, so he means where there is no command there is no violation. Given that transgression could mean violation of a specific command, in order to overturn this view, the counterargument has to show that such a use of the term is not consistent with the context of Romans 4:15. But this counterargument has not done this, so the argument stands.

Explanation:

We can understand what Paul means when he says that where there is no law, there is no transgression, by considering the immediate context. In this section, Paul has explained that Abraham received the promises through faith, not the law (Romans 4:13). In fact, Paul explains, the law brings wrath (Romans 4:14). Now a Jewish person might be wondering how the Mosaic law could bring wrath, so Paul expands by explaining that where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). In other words, the law is an explicit command, and to violate an explicit command is to transgress, and of course, to transgress is to bring wrath.⁴

Counterargument:

The problem here is that it is a truism for Paul to say that where there is no Mosaic law to transgress, there is no transgression.⁵In other words, if a transgression is when one violates an explicit command, then by definition, where there is no law there is no transgression. But if it is true by definition that where there is no law there is no transgression, then it is not clear why Paul would write this, because it makes the statement empty. We expect Paul to make informative statements, so likely he would not write the obvious statement that where there is no law to violate, there is no violation.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument reads the statement where there is no law there is no transgression in isolation. To read a phrase in isolation from the immediate context is to almost guarantee that the phrase is empty, because we interpret the meaning of phrases within their context. In the case of where there is no law there is no transgression, the context is Paul’s discussion that the law brings wrath. It would have been strange for a Jew to hear that the law brings wrath, because the law originates with God, and is supposed to bring blessing. So Paul adds the statement, Where there is no law, there is no transgression, to clarify his point. Now, he takes for granted that his audience recognizes that transgressions are a species of sin, which specifically incur wrath. So when he says, Where there is no law there is no transgression, he implies that when there is law there is transgression, and transgression brings wrath.

The weakness of this view is that Paul has already said that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against the ungodly. He has in mind the Gentiles, and the Gentiles do not have Mosaic law, which, according to this view, means they have not transgressed.

Explanation:

When Paul writes, Where there is no law there is no transgression, he has in mind that the law exposes our sin. That is, Paul is saying that when there is no law to show us that we are sinful, there is no knowledge that we need salvation.⁶ We can deduce this is Paul’s meaning because he will say something similar in Romans 5:13 when he writes that sin is not counted where there is no law. ⁷ Of course, if sin is not counted where there is no law, there is no knowledge that one needs salvation.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it reads a meaning into the text that is absent. That is, it reads into the text the notion that without the law, one does not know that one needs salvation. This view rightly shows that to say, Where there is no law there is no transgression, is similar to the notion that sin is not counted where there is no law (Romans 5:13). Still, it is not clear how we move from the fact that sin is not counted where there is no law to the notion that this makes one ignorant that one needs salvation. For if we continue reading Romans 5, when we reach Romans 5:14 we read that death reigned from Adam to Moses. In other words, even without the law, although sin was not counted, the penalty for sin, which is death, continued to reign. So, although there is no transgression where there is no law, humans still know they need salvation from death.

The weakness of this view is that it does not suit the themes of this section. Paul has been focused on salvation by grace through faith, not works of the law. The notion that there is no awareness of salvation without the law is simply not a theme Paul expounds, or a statement he makes elsewhere.