Existing Studies Summary¶

pvj-09-not-under-law-vs-not-destroy¶

Question: Is Paul abolishing what Jesus preserved? "Not under the law" vs "I came not to destroy"
Key finding: "hypo nomon" in all 12 Pauline uses appears in condemnation/justification/covenantal contexts, never moral instruction
N035: Every Pauline use of "hypo nomon" = condemnation/justification contexts
N036: Both Jesus (pleroo) and Paul (pleroo) use same word for law's fulfillment
N037: Paul's "not under law," "we establish the law," "law is holy" coexist in Romans
I-B resolution: Strong against the reading that "not under the law" abolishes the moral law
6+ Plain statements against abolition, only Ambiguous statements for abolition
E141 (Gal 3:23-24): classified Neutral -- custodial language noted

Question: What is Paul arguing in Galatians regarding the law?
E059: Gal 3:24-25 classified as Neutral (ambiguous referent)
I110: "Paul's teaching abolishes the moral law" classified I-B, resolved Strong against
Key finding: Paul's every concrete example of opposition = circumcision/ceremonial; every concrete moral example = Decalogue content
N086: The specific controversy is circumcision, not the moral law
N087: Paul affirms moral law while denying justificatory power
N090: "Not under the law" (5:18) followed by condemnation of Decalogue violations (5:19-21)
9 Plain + 1 Contextually Clear AGAINST abolition; 3 Ambiguous FOR abolition

Key finding: Paul distinguishes law as justification mechanism (rejected), ceremonial system (superseded), moral law content (fulfilled through love)