^{page 36 note 1} Matt. 5.17.

^{page 36 note 2} Psalm 119.97, 1; 19.7.

^{page 36 note 3} Rom. 7.12.

^{page 36 note 4} See the discussion of this view in Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, ch. 1.

^{page 36 note 5} Cf. Davies, op. cit., p. 69 ff.

^{page 37 note 1} According to Professor Dodd (The Bible and the Greeks, p. 25 ff.), ‘vóμos is fundamentally “custom”, hardening into what we call “Law”. It does not necessarily imply any legislative authority. It is rather an immanent or underlying principle of life and action.’ The ordinary meaning of the term in the period with which we are dealing is however ‘law’ in the proper sense, i.e. ‘either a single statutory enactment or the legal corpus of a given community, whether produced by the codification of existing custom, or laid down by a lawgiver, or enacted by a constitutional authority’.

In the N.T. the word is naturally employed to designate the Jewish Law, especially as set forth in the O.T. By a natural extension, from the Law itself to the books in which it is contained, it is used also for the Pentateuch, or even as a comprehensive description of the content of the O.T. as a whole, this usage corresponding to the Rabbinic use of torah. Again, it is used on occasion for the Jewish religion in general, while in a number of cases it refers to the new principle of life and action which was operative in the Christian Church. The meaning thus extends beyond the simple sense of ‘law’.

^{page 37 note 2} 1 Cor. 9.8, 9.20; 14.21, 34; 15.56; Eph. 2.15; Phil. 3–5, 6.9; 1 Tim. 1.8, 9. Questions of authenticity are here left out of consideration.

^{page 37 note 3} Prov. 6.20 (more commonly enlole; cf. Dodd, op. cit., p. 27), [confd.]

^{page 38 note 1} Professor Dodd reckons that of about 320 places where nomos occurs in LXX about seven-eighths have torah in the Hebrew.

^{page 38 note 2} Driver, Deuteronomy (I.C.C.), p. 208; cf. ib., p. 401.

^{page 38 note 3} Such authoritative judgments, based on custom and precedent, formed the foundation of Hebrew Law, becoming in themselves a series of precedents for future use. Since the priests were the natural guardians of such a developing corpus of Law, the priestly toroth would be not only ceremonial but also in part moral and judicial. See Driver in Hastings D.B. 3.64 ff. (Art. ‘Law’ in Old Testament).

^{page 39 note 1} Dodd, op. cit., p. 31 f.; cf. Driver in H.D.B.

^{page 39 note 2} Cf. Elmslie, How came our Faith, p. 211 f.

^{page 39 note 3} Cf. Moore, Judaism, 1, 282 f.

^{page 39 note 4} ib., p. 251 ff. (see also index s.v. Law).

^{page 39 note 5} ib., p. 262.

^{page 39 note 6} A Man in Christ, p. 93 f. See the whole discussion, pp. 84 ff.

^{page 40 note 1} Matt. 23.23.

^{page 40 note 2} Rom. 2.17 ff.; Gal. 6.13; cf. Acts 7.53; John 7.19. 3 C. Apion, a.18.176 ff.; cf. Schiirer, G.J.V. (1909) 3.552, and the whole section in Josephus, op cit., 2.15.151 ff.

^{page 40 note 3} C. Apion, a.18.176 ff.; cf. Schurer, G.J.V. (1909) 3.552, and the whole section in Josephus, op cit., 2.15.151 ff.

^{page 40 note 4} Stewart, op. cit., p. 97.

^{page 40 note 5} James 2.10.

^{page 40 note 1} Ct. Matt. 5.17 ff.

^{page 41 note 2} Cf. Eph. 2.8, which sums up Paul's doctrine in a few words.

^{page 41 note 3} Cf. Rom. 6.1–8, 13 (Dodd, Romans, p. 84 ff.); Gal. 5.13 ff. Note Rom. 8.3–4.

^{page 41 note 4} Rom. 13.10 (cf. 13.8); cf. also Gal. 5.14; James 2.8. Without the article nomos may be simply indefinite, or it may refer to Law in general, but attention has been drawn to a use of anarthrous nouns by Paul in a sense which is not merely indefinite but qualitative, i.e. in this case emphasising not the Law as a particular code but rather its character as a legalistic system. The Law of Moses is in the writer's mind, but ‘the absence of the article calls attention to it not as proceeding from Moses, but in its quality as Law’ (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 58). See also Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles (Chicago, no date), and Westcott, Hebrews, p. 314 on Heb. 10.8. Slaten lists five cases in which norms is correctly rendered ‘a Law’, but claims that neglect of the qualitative usage has distorted the meaning in other passages.

^{page 42 note 1} Cf. Matt. 5.20; hence Paul's emphasis on the ethical implications of Christian freedom.

^{page 42 note 2} Bultmann (Theol. des NT, 1.256) observes that Paul never appeals to a saying of Jesus in his debate with the Judaisers, but this does not mean that his doctrine of Justification by Faith is entirely a novelty. Cf. Luke 18.18 ff. and parallels, where Jesus, in reply to the ruler's claim to have kept the Law from his youth up, bids him sell his goods and distribute to the poor. This is not merely an injunction to asceticism, but a test of his loyalty to God. In this case the man's wealth provided the test, but it might be anything that can usurp the place of God. In reply to the question of the bystanders ‘Who then can be saved?’ Jesus goes on, ‘The things which are impossible with men are possible with God’, thus throwing men back upon the divine grace as the essential of salvation. Note that this follows immediately after Luke 18.17: ‘Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.’

^{page 42 note 3} Rom. 3.20; Gal. 2.16, 3.11; cf. Acts 13.39.

^{page 42 note 4} Gal 2.16; 3.11; 3.2; 3.18; cf. 4.4 ff. So also the promise to Abraham was prior to the Law: Rom. 4; Gal. 3.6 ff. On the Law and its effects see Rom. 3.19 f.; 5.13–21; 7.7 ff. It should be observed that the two principals in the conflict are Sin and Grace; the Law is only a secondary element (cf. Rom. 5.20).

^{page 42 note 5} Rom. 3.21.

^{page 42 note 6} Eph. 2.8 f.

^{page 42 note 7} Rom. 3.1, 2.

^{page 43 note 1} Rom. 3.23 (cf. Luke 18.19).

^{page 43 note 2} Cf. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, pp. 25 ff., and especially pp. 36–7. See further Stewart, op. cit., pp. 99 ff.

^{page 43 note 3} Rom. 7.12, 14, 16; cf. 1 Tim. 1.8, Gal. 3.21.

^{page 43 note 4} Rom. 5.20; cf. Dodd, ad loc.

^{page 43 note 5} Stewart, op. cit., p. III.

^{page 43 note 6} ibid.

^{page 44 note 1} Rom. 7.21 ff. Moffatt renders ‘This is my experience of the Law’ (cf. Denney in Expositor's Greek Testament, ad loc). The ‘Law of my mind’ is practically identical with the Law of God, but it is the Law of sin to which he gives obedience. What he wishes to show is how completely he is under the thraldom of sin (Dodd, ad loc).

^{page 44 note 2} Rom. 5.8.

^{page 44 note 3} 2 Cor. 5.19.

^{page 44 note 4} i.e. as a requirement necessary to salvation. The claim of the Law as the concrete embodiment of the Will of God for human life is still valid, but in the new life obedience is rendered to the Spirit, not to ‘the flesh’ (cf. Gal. 5.16 ff.).

^{page 44 note 5} 2 Cor. 5.17.

^{page 44 note 6} Rom. 6.14.

^{page 44 note 7} Rom. 7.4; Gal. 2.19; Rom. 8.2; cf. Gal. 6.2. See Dodd, B.G., p. 37. On the relation between the Death of Christ and the sentence of the Law, see Denney in H.D.B., 3.80.

^{page 44 note 8} Gal. 2.20 (Moffatt).

^{page 44 note 9} Rom. 10.4; on the interpretation, see Sanday and Headlam ad loc.

^{page 44 note 10} Cf. Torrance in S.J.T. Vol. 1, p. 60 ff., and refs. there to Snaith; cf. also Smith, Jeremiah, p. 375 ff. Note that Paul returns not to the prophetic idea of torah but to the earlier covenant as revealing the love of God. The torah was only a temporary phase. Cf. Gal. 3.17; Rom. 4.13. Dodd observes that Rom. 2.15 reminds us less of Jeremiah than of Stoicism (B.G., p. 36), but it is not without importance that there was this common ground. Josephus (loc. cit.) claims the fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy among the Jews of his own day, but this is pure apologetic. At the same time it must be emphasised that the primary element in Paul's doctrine is his own experience, not the rediscovery of forgotten ideas in O.T. theology.

^{page 45 note 1} Snaith, , The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 121 f.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Rom. 3.31; cf. 8.3–4; cf- also Matt. 5.17 f. In itself the Law, as a system of religion, was doomed to be no more than a temporary expedient (cf. Stewart, op. cit., pp. 113 ff.). It was a discipline preparatory to the coming of the Christian revelation (ib., p. 115). Cf. Gal. 3.21 ff., with Duncan's notes (Moffatt Commentary, pp. 115 ff.); cf. also Rom. 7.7 ff., with the commentaries ad loc. On the alleged antinomian tendencies of Paul's Gospel, see Stewart, op. cit., pp. 194 ff., Clogg in Interpretation, 4.416 ff.

^{page 45 note 3} Bultmann, , Theol. des NT, p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 4} Rom. 7.10, 12.

^{page 45 note 5} W. G. D. MacLennan in Interpretation, 4.295.

^{page 46 note 1} See Findlay in Expositor's Greek Testament, ad loc.

^{page 46 note 2} Phil. 3.5, 6, 9.

^{page 46 note 3} See Dodd, B.G., p. 34 f., and on the interpretation Scott (Moffatt Commentary) and Salmond (E.G.T.) ad loc.

^{page 46 note 4} Reference may here be made to the usage of Hebrews, which depends entirely on LXX. In this Epistle the Law is not so much a set of statutes to be obeyed as a religious constitution governing worship (see Dodd, B.G., p. 37, and for the conception of Law implied Denney in H.D.B., 3.81). The original association of Law with the priesthood is recalled by 7.12, where a change in the priesthood involves also a change in the nomos (see Moffatt (I.C.C.) ad loc.). The use of nomos in 7.16 is readily explained by 7.28.

^{page 46 note 5} Cf. Denney in H.D.B., 3.82, Moffatt, Introd., p. 468. Mayor, both in his Commentary and in H.D.B., 2.543 ff., argues for the pre-Pauline date, while Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 285 (Bern, 1946) assigns the letter to the period before the Gentile Mission of Paul.

^{page 47 note 1} James gives no direct answer to the Pauline doctrine, such as would be expected if he were seeking to refute it; on the other hand, the antinomianism of certain Gnostic sects indicates that Paul's position was in fact misunderstood, despite Rom. 6.15 ff. and similar passages.

^{page 47 note 2} Nomosoccurs in seven passages altogether, twice with the article and referring clearly to the Mosaic Law, and twice in the qualitative sense which is found in Paul (2.9, 10; 2.11 (cf. Rom. 2.25), 4.11). The remaining passages are 1.25, 2.8, 12.

^{page 47 note 3} Cf. Mayor, fames, p. 71.

^{page 47 note 4} Oesterley in E.G.T., 4.433.

^{page 47 note 5} Moffatt, Introd., p. 464; cf. Mayor, op. cit., p. 60, Oesterley, loc. cit.

^{page 47 note 6} Quoted by Moffatt, op. cit., p. 465 (note). On the usage of nomos in the Epistle, see Dodd, B.G., p. 39 f.

^{page 47 note 7} See Kirk, The Vision of God, especially Lecture III.

^{page 48 note 1} Hebrews is concerned with the sacrifices of the Temple, which are abrogated by the sacrifice once for all of Christ; in James the Law of Moses is replaced by the ‘perfect’ Law, which is at the same time a ‘Law of freedom’; the latter view is the logical outcome of the attitude of Jesus (cf. Mayor in H.D.B., 2.544 for parallels between James and the Sermon on the Mount).

^{page 48 note 2} Gal. 5.1.