To what does “the law” refer?

Explanation:

Paul introduces an analogy in Romans 7:1–3 regarding the law, in order to explain the relationship between believers and the law in light of Christ’s ministry. While Paul does not refer to the law as the Mosaic law, we can detect that in fact the Mosaic law is what he has in mind. For he makes a statement about the law that aligns closely with what rabbinic Jews said about the Mosaic law. In particular, Paul writes that the law is binding on a person only as long as they live (Romans 7:1). Interestingly, we find rabbinic Jews making a similar statement when they write, When a man dies, he is free from the law and commandments.⁴ Given the similarity between Paul’s comment and the fact that rabbinic Jews said the same thing about the Mosaic law, it is likely that when Paul refers to the law in Romans 7:1, he has in mind the Mosaic law.

Counterargument:

While it might be that the rabbinic Jews said that a man who dies is freed from the Mosaic law, Paul’s statement in Romans 7:1 is not equivalent to this rabbinic statement. That is, when the rabbinic Jews say that the man who dies is freed from the law, they have in mind one subject. There is one man, and when that one man dies, he is freed from the law. On the other hand, when Paul says that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives, he has in mind two subjects. That is, the law is binding on person A, so long as person B lives. We can detect that Paul has in mind two subjects because he goes on to introduce an analogy where he explains that a woman is freed from the law to her husband when her husband dies. In other words, the woman is subject A, and when her husband, subject B, dies, she is no longer obliged to him. Given that the rabbinic Jews refer to one subject and Paul refers to two, Romans 7:1 is not equivalent to rabbinic statements regarding the law. Thus, it is not clear that Paul has the Mosaic law in mind.

 Response to counterargument:

Whether or not Paul has two subjects in mind is not to the point. Rather, Paul’s point is the general principle that there is a connection between a person dying and a person no longer being obliged to the law. Of course, this is a rabbinic principle, so likely Paul has the Mosaic law in mind. 

Explanation:

Paul introduces an analogy related to the law to illustrate the relationship between believers and sin through their union with Christ. And we can deduce from the broad context that the law refers to the Mosaic law. For the Mosaic law has been the topic of discussion in Romans 2:1–5:21. Paul has explained that the law came in to increase the trespass (Romans 5:20), and that believers are no longer under the Mosaic law (Romans 6:14–15).⁵ Clearly, the broad context indicates that Paul has the Mosaic law in mind.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Paul refers to the Mosaic law in some sections of this letter, he has also referred to a generic law. For example, in Romans 2:14–15 Paul explains that the Gentiles, who do not have the Mosaic law, sometimes do the law, showing that the law is written on their hearts. That the Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law but have a law written on their hearts suggests that there is a sort of generic law applicable to all humans. So when Paul refers to the law in Romans 7:1, he may have in mind a generic law applicable to all humans.

Response to counterargument:

Not only does the broad context suggest that Paul has in mind the Mosaic law, but so does the immediate context. This is important because the immediate context plays a more influential role than the broader context when interpreting a passage, so if Paul has the Mosaic law in mind in the immediate context, this strongly suggests that Paul’s mention of the law in Romans 7:1 refers to the Mosaic law. So what does Paul write in the immediate context? He follows up Romans 7:1 with an analogy related to marriage, adultery, and being a widow, which reflects the requirements of the Mosaic law. Further, in Romans 7:7 he quotes directly from the Mosaic law the command not to covet. Since Paul has the Mosaic law in mind in the immediate context, when he refers to the law in Romans 7:1, he likely has the Mosaic law in mind.

The one weakness of this view is that it assumes Paul’s audience would know that when he refers to the law he has in mind the Mosaic law. Of course, the principle that the law is binding on a person only as long as they live is generic enough that it is true in regard to any law. Given that Paul’s audience may have included Jewish and Gentile Christians, he may have intended his audience to understand the law as any law, whether Jewish, Roman, or otherwise.

Explanation:

Paul is explaining the new life believers have in Christ and their ability to deny sinful passions. In order to make his point clear, he appeals to a common-sense principle that would be obvious to anyone in his audience. In particular, he appeals to the notion that the law is only valid as long as someone is alive. His point will be that since the believers have died with Christ, they have died, which means the law is no longer valid for them. Given that it is obvious that the law does not apply to dead people, it is clear that Paul appeals to the common sense of his audience through the universal notion that any law, whether Jewish, Roman, Greek, or otherwise, only binds the living.⁸

Counterargument:

The immediate context overturns the notion that Paul refers to a universal law that is common to all people (see interpretation 1, argument b, response to counterargument).  First, in Romans 7:1 Paul refers to the law. He says that the law is only valid for the living. He goes on to write that the believers have died to the law (Romans 7:4), clearly referring to the same law he introduced in Romans 7:1. He then writes that their sinful passions were aroused by the law (Romans 7:5), but they have been released from the law (Romans 7:6), now clearly referring to the Mosaic law. Then in Romans 7:7 he asks if the law is sin, before citing the tenth commandment, You shall not covet. The tenth commandment is an aspect of the Mosaic law. So Paul is explaining the relationship between the law and believers in this section, and he uses an example that shows that he has the Mosaic law in mind. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the law in Romans 7:1 refers to a common universal human law, because it is highly unlikely that Paul would switch between the notion of a universal human law and the Mosaic law without indicating this to his readers.

Explanation:

Paul uses an analogy related to marriage to illustrate the believer’s relationship to the law. Before he does this, he points out that his readers are those who know law. Paul does not write that his readers know the law, but that they know law. That Paul leaves out the article the is telling because the Mosaic law is normally referred to as the law. Since Paul addresses those who know law, rather than those who know the law, this implies that Paul has in mind some universal law that is recognizable to anyone, including Jews, Greeks, and Romans.⁹

 Counterargument:

This argument misunderstands an important detail regarding the article in Greek grammar. The article is not necessary in order to denote something as definite.¹⁰ That is, an author can use a noun without the article and still mean to refer to a definite object in a class. For example, Paul can refer to the Mosaic law by the simple noun law, where the article the is implied. Of course, without the article, one could also have an indefinite usage in mind, so depending on the context, we could translate the term νόμος as a law or the law. On the other hand, when the article is present, the noun must be definite.¹¹ That is, when Paul includes the article and writes ὁ νόμος (the law), we can only take him to mean the law, and not a law. Of course, after writing that his audience knows νόμος (a/the law), Paul goes on to refer to ὁ νόμος in the next clause (Romans 7:1b), which suggests that he has the Mosaic law in mind.

The weakness of this view is that it confuses Paul’s intent with the application of what he writes. Our job as interpreters is to identify Paul’s intent, and the context clearly suggests that he has in mind the Mosaic law. Of course, that the law is obligatory for the living is true for any law, so there is a general applicability to Paul’s statement in Romans 7:1, which this view picks up on. Still, it is a mistake to confuse Paul’s intent, which is the meaning of the passage, with the general applicability of Paul’s statement.