What does it mean to be alive apart from the law?

Explanation:

Paul writes in Romans 7:9 that he was once alive apart from the law. To understand what this means, it is helpful to reflect on two things that Paul has already written about the law.³ First, in Romans 4:15 he explained that the law brings wrath, but where there is no law, there is no transgression. What he means here is that the law reveals sin as a transgression against God’s commands, so that although humans sin without the law, they are unaware of the fact that sin is against God’s will. Second, in Romans 5:13 Paul reiterates the sentiment of Romans 4:15 when he writes that sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. The notion here is that without the law, sin is not tallied because without the law, it is not clear that sin is an action that goes against God. Relatedly, when Paul writes that he was once alive apart from the law, he has in mind that at some time he was ignorant of the fact that his actions were against the demands of God. That is, Paul lived unaware of the demands of the law, so he was alive apart from the law.⁴

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, Paul cannot be reflecting on his own experience here because there was no time when Paul was apart from the law. That is, we know from Jewish sources that Jewish children were exposed to the teachings of the law at an early age. For example, there was found a child’s gravestone in Rome with the marker lover of the law.⁵ Of course, we know that Paul was a devout Pharisee so he must have been raised to follow the law (Philippians 3:6). Thus, there was never a time when Paul was apart from the law. Therefore, when Paul refers to being alive apart from the law in Romans 7:9, he is likely using I in a rhetorical sense.⁶ That is, he likely has in mind the perspective of Adam, or Israel, but not himself.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misunderstands what we mean by apart from the law. According to this counterargument, by apart from the law Paul means never having encountered the law. But this is not what this view is arguing for. That is, this view is not arguing that Paul is saying he was once alive at a time when he had not yet encountered the law. Rather, this view is arguing that there was a time when, although Paul had the law, it was as though he did not because he did not understand the spirit of the law. Instead, Paul followed the letter of the law so that he was oblivious to the laws spiritual demands.⁷ To say it another way, Paul is saying that he was once alive before he understood the true implications of the law.

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means that he was once alive apart from the law by a statement he makes in his letter to the Philippians. There Paul explains to the Philippians that he was a Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity, and when he reflects on his Pharisaic zeal, he characterizes his righteousness under the law as blameless (Philippians 3:5–6). Of course, in reality Paul was not blameless, because he has already explained that no one will be justified by the works of the law because all are under sin (Romans 3:9–20). In other words, there was a time in Paul’s life when he did not understand the demands of God’s law, and so he considered himself righteous. In reality, he was living apart from the actual demands of God’s law.^8,9 Thus, he was alive apart from the law in the sense that he was ignorant to the law’s true demands.

Counterargument:

Philippians 3:6 works against this interpretation. For there Paul reflects on the period when he was well-versed in the law to the point where he could even consider himself blameless in regard to following it. This is a problem for this interpretation because in Romans 7:9 Paul refers to a time before he encountered the law, which implies he must be referring to a time before he became a well-versed Pharisee. We can detect that in Romans 7:9 Paul refers to a time before he was a Pharisee because in Romans 7:7 he specifically explains that before he heard the command you shall not covet, he did not know what sin was. But once he heard the command, sin took advantage of the opportunity and produced covetous desires in him (Romans 7:8). Clearly, as a well-versed Pharisee, Paul knew the command you shall not covet, so in Romans 7:7–9 he must be referring to a time before he was a Pharisee, blameless in the law. If that is right, then when he says he was alive apart from the law, he is not reflecting on a time when he was a self-righteous Pharisee who did not understand the true implications of the law. Rather, he is reflecting on a time before he had even heard the law.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument overlooks the rhetorical force of Paul’s statement in Romans 7:9. That is, Paul is not referring to a literal time before he had heard the law but is instead using rhetoric to highlight the function of the law, including how it exacerbates rather than solves the problem of sin. We know that Paul is being rhetorical because as a Jew, there was never a time when he was apart from the law. He would have been raised to understand and memorize the law of God since childhood. Given that there was never an actual time when Paul lived apart from knowing the tenets of the law, he must have a rhetorical meaning in mind. Likely, there was a time when, although he had the law memorized, he was once ignorant of the law’s demands.

Response to response to counterargument:

This response will not suffice. According to this response, since Paul was never actually apart from the law, when he says he was alive apart from the law he means that there was a time when, although he knew the law, he was ignorant of the law’s demands. The context tends strongly against this view. When Paul writes that he was once alive apart from the law, he does not say, And then conversion came, and I finally understood the demands of the law, and sin sprang to life. Rather, he writes that he was alive apart from the law and then the commandment came, and sin sprang to life. Before this, in Romans 7:7 he says that the command you shall not covet—not enlightenment to the actual demands of the law—instigated sin. So Paul is not saying he was once alive apart from the law, but when he finally came to understand the true demands of the law, sin came to life. Rather, he says he was once alive apart from the law, but when he encountered the command, that is, the law, sin came to life.¹⁰

The weakness of this view is that if Paul wanted to say that he once lived aside from his true understanding of the law’s demands, we would expect Paul to say this clearly. That is, the notion that Paul was once alive apart from the law does not obviously imply that Paul is saying there was a time when he did not understand the law. Rather, on the face of it, that Paul was alive apart from the law implies he existed without the law.

Explanation:

When Paul writes, I was once alive apart from the law, there is a strong indication that he uses the term I to refer to Adam. Adam was the first man, and the rest of humanity is associated with him. So in a way, Paul is saying that every man was once alive apart from the law.¹³ We can detect that he has Adam in mind, and by association every man, because he uses three terms in Romans 7:9 that are associated with Adam’s fall into sin as narrated in Genesis. In particular, in Romans 7:9 Paul uses the terms I was alive, once, and I died. These terms reflect the stages of Adma’s fall into sin. First, God creates a living being, then God commands Adam not to eat from the tree or he will surely die.¹⁴ In other words, Adam was once alive apart from the law, but when the command came, sin sprang to life and Adam died. Of course, if, when Paul says he was once alive apart from the law he has Adam in mind, he has in mind that Adam was once spiritually alive because God had not yet issued any commands.

Counterargument:

This view holds that when Paul says, I was alive apart from the law, he has in mind that Adam was spiritually alive apart from the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The problem is that the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not the command Paul has in mind in Romans 7:9. For in Romans 7:9, Paul specifically has the law of Moses in mind, which was given after Adam. So Paul is saying he was once alive apart from the commands of the law of Moses, not the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

We can detect that Paul has the law of Moses in mind because he writes in Romans 7:7 that he would not have known sin unless the law said, You shall not covet. Of course, the command not to covet is clearly a command of the law of Moses. Thus, when Paul goes on to say that he was once alive apart from the law, the law he has in mind is the law of Moses, which came after Adam, so he cannot be referring to the time when Adam was spiritually alive before God commanded him not to eat from the tree.

Response to counterargument:

In Jewish theology there was a sense that the law of Moses was already in effect before the creation of Adam. Jewish theologians also infer that Adam was meant to keep the law and commandments when he was in the garden.¹⁵ So it is not entirely out of line for Paul to refer to a moment before the law in relation to Adam.

Response to response to counterargument:

While it might be that some Jewish theologians taught that the law of Moses was present with Adam in the garden, this does not seem to be the theology of Paul. For we know from Galatians 3:17 that according to Paul, the law of Moses was given 430 years after Abraham, which reflects the fact that the covenant with God is based on a promise, not on adherence to the law. Given that Paul clearly indicates that the law of Moses was specifically given to Israel, it is unlikely that he would associate the law of Moses with Adam.

Explanation:

At first it is not clear what Paul means when he writes, I was once alive apart from the law, because we know that Paul was a zealous Pharisee who was never ignorant of the law. Still, by considering the immediate context, we can detect that when Paul refers to I, he is associating humankind with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That is, he is saying there was a time when humanity was alive apart from the law. We can detect this because in Romans 7:11 Paul seems to describe the situation of Adam and Eve in the garden. For he says that sin seized an opportunity through the commandment which killed me. Of course, this is precisely what happened to Adam and Eve in the garden. For before God gave them the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, sin lay dormant. But once God gave the command, sin seized the opportunity and Adam and Eve disobeyed God.¹⁶ Given that Romans 7:11 seems to describe the first sin, when Paul refers to being alive apart from the law, he likely has in mind that humankind was once alive apart from God’s commands while sin lay dormant.

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this view begs the question in its own favour. That is, this view has it that Romans 7:11 describes the situation of Adam and Eve in the garden and then says that because Romans 7:11 has to do with Adam and Eve in the garden, Romans 7:9 is about the primordial sin of Adam and Eve. Of course, it begs the question to assume that Romans 7:11 describes the situation of Adam and Eve, because it may actually describe the situation of Paul when sin deceived him by the command. That is, Romans 7:11 may just as well describe the fact that when Paul first encountered the command, he was deceived by sin. Thus, unless this argument gives us independent reason to think that Romans 7:11 is about Adam and Eve and not Paul’s own encounter with the law, this view begs the question in its own favour.

The weakness of this view is that if Paul had Adam’s sin in the garden in mind, we would expect him to make this more clear. He has already referred to Adam in Romans 5:1–21, so he has no problem making theological arguments that refer back to Adam. Thus, if he wanted his readers to notice that Adam was alive apart from the law, we would expect him to simply say this.

Explanation:

It is important to notice the context in which Paul writes that he was once alive apart from the law. For Paul prefaces this comment with a statement in Romans 7:8, where he writes that sin seized an opportunity through the command and produced covetousness. He then says he was once alive apart from the law.

Now when Paul says the command produced covetousness, he is likely thinking about the Israelites at Mount Sinai. For before the Israelites received the law of God, they had not made any idols to God, but once they receive the law, they make an idol in the form of a golden calf. It is as though the Mosaic law stirred sin in them. Thus, Paul likely has in mind that Israel was once alive apart from the law.¹⁷

We know from Romans 5:12 that death spread to all humans since Adam because all have sinned, so Paul cannot mean that Israel was spiritually alive apart from the law. So he likely means that Israel once existed without the law of God.¹⁸

Counterargument:

According to this argument, Paul must be reflecting on the position of Israel before the giving of the law, because before the law they did not have idols, but after the law they created a golden calf. There is one significant problem with this argument. If Paul had in mind the Israelites’ creating a golden calf, then it is unlikely that he would refer to the command not to covet in Romans 7:7. Rather, if he was reflecting on the fact that before the law Israel did not have an idol, but after the law they made the golden calf, Paul would have referred to the command not to make idols in Romans 7:7. That is, he would not have known sin until he encountered the command, you shall not have any idols. Sin then seized the opportunity through the command and produced idolatrousness. Of course, this is not the command Paul references. Rather, he references the command not to covet, which suggests he has something other than Israel’s experience at Sinai in mind.

The weakness of this view is that it does not consider the rhetorical structure of Romans 7:1–25. For throughout this chapter Paul will refer to his struggle with sin, the fact that he is sold under sin, and the war that rages between his members and his mind. Nowhere does he refer to the nation of Israel. Thus, it is more likely that Paul has his experience with sin in mind, which could be applied to the nation of Israel analogically, than that he refers to himself as Israel.