Bible Study The authority of the law: Romans 7

[smaller]

The Lord gave unto Adam one command. Of all the trees in the Garden you may eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, or you shall surely die.

But the serpent said you shall not die, but your eyes shall opened and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil

The Law gives us the knowledge of good and evil. The Law gives us the knowledge is sin. We know the sting of sin is death, and the strength of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56).

Do you say the same thing of the Law as the women did of the tree of knowledge, that it is a tree good for food, and it is pleasant to the eyes, that it is a tree to be desired to make one wise? Does the knowledge of the Law open your eyes to sin?

What happened to Adam and Eve when their eyes were opened to the knowledge of their sin? They took to themselves a covering to hide from the presence of the Lord.

Try a fuller story on Adam and Eve.

Adam had the first law: Do not eat or else. (command and penalty for violation)

But was it just Adam? No.

We also know that by the LAW, the Word of God, Satan is also moved into the heart of MAN to resist God's Words. See Mark 4:15

Now apply the fact of Mark 4:15 from Jesus and anyone should be able to see that Adam was not alone IN HEART. Satan in fact "entered" the heart of Adam from the moment God blessed Adam.

The Law actually came SECOND, after the blessing God gave Adam and that was because the lawless one, Satan, had already entered the heart of Adam. Satan is also a sinner (1 John 3:8) and the law is for "sinners." Adam was God's son. Luke 3:38. So, IF anyone can see this THEN why would they slur God's son and NEGLECT the entry of the deceiver, the lawless one, into the heart of Adam???

That's the real story of Adam and Eve and Satan, the deceiver, the lawless one, the tempter in their hearts. It's entirely pointless to NOT see this and only see Adam and Eve because in the scriptural sense that is not and can not be the case.

NOW, go read the law and we'll see that it is actually quite friendly an in our behalf in the revealing and condemnation of SATAN.

 

[ezrider]

NOW, go read the law and we'll see that it is actually quite friendly an in our behalf in the revealing and condemnation of SATAN.

Oh please, whisper to me one more time. That the Law is good for food, for man shall not live by bread alone.... That the knowledge of the law is is pleasant and quite friendly to our eyes. Why the knowledge of the Law is to be greatly desired to make one wise in the knowledge of sin and death.

Why do you bid me to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge again when I have already been given the tree of Life?

 

[smaller]

Oh please, whisper to me one more time. That the Law is good for food, for man shall not live by bread alone.... That the knowledge of the law is is pleasant and quite friendly to our eyes. Why the knowledge of the Law is to be greatly desired to make one wise in the knowledge of sin and death. Why do you bid me to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge again when I have already been given the tree of Life?

When you write your own Bible the above is what you hear.

 

[GodsGrace]

Smaller,

I'm keeping out of the way between you and EZRider. It's very interesting.

This statement of yours gave me pause to ponder:

The Law actually came SECOND, after the blessing God gave Adam and that was because the lawless one, Satan, had already entered the heart of Adam. Satan is also a sinner (1 John 3:8) and the law is for "sinners." Adam was God's son. Luke 3:38. So, IF anyone can see this THEN why would they slur God's son and NEGLECT the entry of the deceiver, the lawless one, into the heart of Adam???

Here's why. It goes to Concupiscense or the sin nature: If Adam and Eve were innocent and had not eaten of the fruit yet and thus did not have the sin nature - what made them eat the fruit? You might have the answer here, but I'm not sure it's biblical. It's kind of, like, what came first the chicken or the egg.

I'm not sure if this is off topic. In any case, it's an interesting concept. I can't get it from 1 John 3:8. And in Luke 3:38 how is it slurring God's son to neglect the deceiver? IOW, you're saying that God made Adam perfect and then the deceiver entered, thus removing the responsibility of the sin of disobedience from God?

Wondering

 

[smaller]

Smaller,

I'm keeping out of the way between you and EZRider. It's very interesting.

I have nothing against EZRider. These are largely positional understanding alternates. I have sat under the type of teaching that EZRider is trying to employ, so I get it.

This statement of yours gave me pause to ponder:

The Law actually came SECOND, after the blessing God gave Adam and that was because the lawless one, Satan, had already entered the heart of Adam. Satan is also a sinner (1 John 3:8) and the law is for "sinners." Adam was God's son. Luke 3:38. So, IF anyone can see this THEN why would they slur God's son and NEGLECT the entry of the deceiver, the lawless one, into the heart of Adam???

Here's why. It goes to Concupiscense or the sin nature: If Adam and Eve were innocent

And that misses the point of observation. If we accept that Mark 4:15 was also true for Adam, then we see the Divine Cadence in the events, and we should see that Gods Word blessed Adam. THEN, exactly as Mark 4:15 stipulates, Satan, the deceiver entered Adam's heart. At that point, immediately after the Word was sown in Adam it is no longer a question of "just Adam" from a theological perspective. It's a question of Adam and the deceiver who entered his heart. That means there are TWO parties to the equation. THEN, after the Word of blessing came the first law, which was against the "lawless one" who operates according to the principle of Mark 4:15. That operation was/is in the flesh. In the flesh of Adam was Adam, Gods son, and the deceiver. It is a huge mistake in sight to see just Adam in the equations.

All scripture revolves around the principle of Mark 4:15. The Law does address TWO parties, always. The Law was meant for our blessings and Satan's cursing. Two polar opposite sights from the same Words addressing TWO different parties in one place, the flesh. Paul elaborates on this same principle at length in his writings. Romans 7, Romans 9, Romans 11 in particular as well as in 2 Cor. 12, 1 Timothy 1 and 2 Tim. 2 for the more detailed examinations.

This sight EZRider does not have. Nor do many for that matter.

IOW, you're saying that God made Adam perfect and then the deceiver entered, thus removing the responsibility of the sin of disobedience from God.

Wondering

There was absolutely NO WAY for Adam to make Satan in his heart/flesh "responsible" or "legally obedient." Satan was made to resist the Law and is empowered by The Word to do so. So there is an opposite or opposing worker in ALL law equations. And it's a very real present power that essentially still blinds believers effectively, and that working/worker still causes believers NOT to see it. For example, the instant any believer reads Mark 4:15 they will hear a voice in their own heads that says "This doesn't happen to you because you are a believer." And that is a lie from the liar in the flesh.

 

[ezrider]

I'm keeping out of the way between you and EZRider. It's very interesting.

This statement of yours gave me pause to ponder:

The Law actually came SECOND, after the blessing God gave Adam and that was because the lawless one, Satan, had already entered the heart of Adam. Satan is also a sinner (1 John 3:8) and the law is for "sinners." Adam was God's son. Luke 3:38. So, IF anyone can see this THEN why would they slur God's son and NEGLECT the entry of the deceiver, the lawless one, into the heart of Adam???

Here's why. It goes to Concupiscense or the sin nature: If Adam and Eve were innocent and had not eaten of the fruit yet and thus did not have the sin nature - what made them eat the fruit? You might have the answer here, but I'm not sure it's biblical. It's kind of, like, what came first the chicken or the egg.

It is a common assumption to say that before they ate the fruit they did not have a sin nature, but it that truly correct? Is there any scripture that could substantiate that? I do not recall any. In all likelihood, they were created with that nature but were unaware of it until they ate of the fruit of knowledge and then became self aware; they knew that they were naked. That is the nature they were created with, they were created naked.

So why then did the Lord give the one commandment to Adam to not eat of the of fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge of the Law? Did the Lord give the command to provoke Adam to eat, or was the command given to provoke the serpent to tempt Adam to eat? Recall, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived: Adam partook knowingly.

The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last man Adam (Christ) was made a quickening Spirit. Adam the living soul brought the knowledge of sin and death into the world, and by the authority of the commandment, the consequence was death. But let's not forget that there is a process to the new creation. For the body is first sown naked and in corruption, it is raised in incorruption wed to the Spirit of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:36-38
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

It is sown naked, a bare grain and must die before it can be quickened as a new creature.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

[ezrider]

NOW, go read the law and we'll see that it is actually quite friendly an in our behalf in the revealing and condemnation of SATAN.

All scripture revolves around the principle of Mark 4:15. The Law does address TWO parties, always. The Law was meant for our blessings and Satan's cursing. Two polar opposite sights from the same Words addressing TWO different parties in one place, the flesh. Paul elaborates on this same principle at length in his writings. Romans 7, Romans 9, Romans 11 in particular as well as in 2 Cor. 12, 1 Timothy 1 and 2 Tim. 2 for the more detailed examinations.

This sight EZRider does not have. Nor do many for that matter.

You have been preaching this doctrine of yours for quite some time now, and while you assume that I do not have this sight, I simply do not indulge you with it. But in you assumptions about what I may or may not know, there is one thing that truly stands out to me as being absent or excluded from your doctrine, and that is the power of the Spirit by the Grace of the Lord. It appears to me that you are solely focused upon the revealing and condemnation of SATAN. I am not clear on where you actually stand. Do you wish to magnify and glorify SATAN? Or do you attempt to magnify Christ as His Glory is revealed in us apart from the Law: through faith by His Spirit?

Since you have this great wealth of knowledge about how the law works to reveal the condemnation of SATAN? Maybe you can explain the effects of Grace on defeating the enemy. For what saith the scriptures? Where sin abounded, Grace did much more abound. Or how about the scripture that says there is now no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus. If there is no more condemnation to those which are in Christ, then that means no more condemnation. Jesus gave you a new commandment, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, not condemn them; Forgive one another your trespasses. For the man of Sin is destroyed by the revelation of the Glory of the Lord, which comes by faith and not by the law, but in the face of the law.

If the archangel Michael when disputing over the bones of Moses did not bring railing accusation against the devil, then why spent such an inordinate amount of time focusing on his condemnation? Why the focus on the power and authority given to the Law as if you are sitting in the seat of Moses, when that power and authority has been given to Christ? Do you even acknowledge that power of the Lord's Grace is of greater authority than that of the Law?

 

[reba]

Not necessarily directed at the last poster.. Lets try a bit more to not get personal... thanks reba

 

[GodsGrace]

It is a common assumption to say that before they ate the fruit they did not have a sin nature, but it that truly correct? Is there any scripture that could substantiate that? I do not recall any. In all likelihood, they were created with that nature but were unaware of it until they ate of the fruit of knowledge and then became self aware; they knew that they were naked. That is the nature they were created with, they were created naked.

So why then did the Lord give the one commandment to Adam to not eat of the of fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge of the Law? Did the Lord give the command to provoke Adam to eat, or was the command given to provoke the serpent to tempt Adam to eat? Recall, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived: Adam partook knowingly.

The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last man Adam (Christ) was made a quickening Spirit. Adam the living soul brought the knowledge of sin and death into the world, and by the authority of the commandment, the consequence was death. But let's not forget that there is a process to the new creation. For the body is first sown naked and in corruption, it is raised in incorruption wed to the Spirit of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:36-38
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

It is sown naked, a bare grain and must die before it can be quickened as a new creature.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

ezrider,
Your first paragraph is problematic. If they were created with "that nature" (the sin nature) then it would mean that God placed it in them. God said everything He created was good. I never read or heard that they were unaware of their sin nature but I always understood that God told them not to eat because they would become aware of evil. Unitl then, they knew only good. Now they ate and knew the evil too - the evil or sin nature entered into creation, also entering into them as the sin nature. They became aware of their nakedness because before it was innocent. I'm not sure what you mean by "they were created naked." (end of first pp).

Why did God give the command not to eat? I don't think it was to tempt Adam or the serpent. I think God gave the commandment because He wanted man to freely obey. Maybe it was a test? He wanted man to love Him so much that he WOULD obey. But we failed the test.

I'm having a little trouble tying this into the Law because I have to leave here in 5 minutes. Will be thinking on it for later. Was this the beginning of the Law?? Was the Law's beginning in the Mosaic Covenant? I think so, not sure. What say you? (the natural law always existed - Cain murdering able was wrong)

Wondering

 

[JLB]

It is a common assumption to say that before they ate the fruit they did not have a sin nature, but it that truly correct?

Yes, that's correct.

It wasn't until Adam transgressed the word that God gave them, which at that time was the only law for mankind, that sin entered into the human race.

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

It was Adam's offense that caused judgement to come to all men.

Before this act of disobedience, Adam was sinless, and would pass on this sin-free nature to his offspring, and so on.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

the of fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge of the Law?

"Do not eat" is 'the knowledge of the law' in the account of Adam and Eve. That law then provoked and aroused in them the desire to eat (with satan's help, of course).

"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Romans 7:7-12 NASB)

They were vulnerable to the deceits of the enemy because they were naked:

"...clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh." (Romans 13:14 NIV)

 

[smaller]

You have been preaching this doctrine of yours for quite some time now, and while you assume that I do not have this sight, I simply do not indulge you with it.

It's not "my" doctrine. It's one of the most openly transparent exposed positional understandings in the N.T.

Yet, it remains unseen, which is a testimony of it. Acts 26:18, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 4:4 among many others.

But in you assumptions about what I may or may not know, there is one thing that truly stands out to me as being absent or excluded from your doctrine, and that is the power of the Spirit by the Grace of the Lord.

There is no Grace provided to the workings of the devil and his messengers. It's the opposite. Condemnation and wrath, which is provided via the Law and the power of God in Christ.

It appears to me that you are solely focused upon the revealing and condemnation of SATAN.

Brilliant deduction with the exception of the term solely. I take it for granted people who post here already know God in Christ.

I am not clear on where you actually stand. Do you wish to magnify and glorify SATAN?

My understanding from the scriptures is that the opposite is the case by the power of God in Christ. Scripture does lay out "how" that will transpire as well. Part of that is arousal, empowerment and open exposures. Mark 16:16-18 for one example.

Or do you attempt to magnify Christ as His Glory is revealed in us apart from the Law: through faith by His Spirit?

It's not a one or the other engagement. There are two activities that always transpire, as previously noted. The devil could care less about the things we treasure of God in Christ and has an opposing reaction.

Since you have this great wealth of knowledge about how the law works to reveal the condemnation of SATAN? Maybe you can explain the effects of Grace on defeating the enemy.

Romans 7:8-13 and 1 Cor. 15:56 are very much on the upper/outer branches of the agenda of God in Christ.

For what saith the scriptures? Where sin abounded, Grace did much more abound.

For people, yes. For the devil and his messengers, NADA chance.

Or how about the scripture that says there is now no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus.

You are demonstrating a decided lack of skill. The contrariness of the flesh to the Spirit will never have that pleasure. Gal. 5:17. And we all have that contrariness. Phil. 3:21. Most christians suffer the imposed delusion that their whole package is all that. It ain't.

If there is no more condemnation to those which are in Christ, then that means no more condemnation.

Wrong answer. God in Christ, Grace and Mercy allies and aligns with no sin/evil in the flesh/heart/mind, ever. YET we all have these issues with sin/evil in the flesh-heart-mind, which are in fact demonic. 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Tim. 1:15, 1 John 3:8.

Jesus gave you a new commandment, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, not condemn them; Forgive one another your trespasses. For the man of Sin is destroyed by the revelation of the Glory of the Lord, which comes by faith and not by the law, but in the face of the law.

Were that the case then sin wouldn't currently exist. Yet the world reeks and reels with SIN and EVIL. And of course that is a dead end street that lands in heresy land when people claim various things like "oh, if you don't eat the fruit of good and evil" then there is no sin. Which is where your claim eventually lands.

If the archangel Michael when disputing over the bones of Moses did not bring railing accusation against the devil,

Don't know what you're reading. "-but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

then why spent such an inordinate amount of time focusing on his condemnation?

We are long past the point where any accusations toward the devil and his messengers are relevant. They are already judged and sentenced. We await the final executions of divisions/separations and full on wrath upon "them." The difficulty arises when we see their location being the flesh. It is at this sight that every believer chokes, without exception.

Why the focus on the power and authority given to the Law as if you are sitting in the seat of Moses,

I am rather fond of God in Christ being against sin and evil. Aren't you?

when that power and authority has been given to Christ? Do you even acknowledge that power of the Lord's Grace is of greater authority than that of the Law?

It is entirely pointless to pit the Law, Gods Words, as being against Gods Grace. They are entirely in alignment and entirely complimentary.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: -

IF anyone gets the picture, they'll understand the opposite is the case. The Law is entirely FOR and in behalf of the promises of God in Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

They were vulnerable to the deceits of the enemy because they were naked:

"...clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh." (Romans 13:14 NIV)

Then could we say that the sin nature is simply man's desire to satisfy his own fleshy will rather than the desire to obey God's will. Adam was given the opportunity to choose. But as you say he had no help to do this/no covering or at least he did not go to God for help. This reminds me of Cain not communicating with God, when God gave him the chance, before he killed Abel. It also reminds me of Solomon taking pagan wives and God told him that if he wished to have more wives that he should have come to God and God would have blessed him, (paraphrased, someone else could say that better). So was Adam not trusting God with Eve? Adam lacked faith, belief and trust, in God.

Is this the same with the old man? That the old man's desire, in his heart, is to do whatever his flesh desires. The new man, in his heart, desires to please God. The old man in his nature lacks faith, belief and trust, in God. The new man has faith by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in his heart.

 

[WIP]

Recall, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived: Adam partook knowingly.

Can you provide the Scripture to substantiate this statement? I've heard this before but when I read Genesis I get a different picture. Here's what I found in Genesis 3:1-3 NKJV.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

How can you say she did not know? She was the one who claimed that she was deceived trying to pass the blame onto the serpent. Adam tied to pass the blame on Eve. Seems they are both guilty.

 

[Deborah13]

Can you provide the Scripture to substantiate this statement? I've heard this before but when I read Genesis I get a different picture. Here's what I found in Genesis 3:1-3 NKJV.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

How can you say she did not know? She was the one who claimed that she was deceived trying to pass the blame onto the serpent. Adam tied to pass the blame on Eve. Seems they are both guilty.

Paul says she was deceived.
1Ti 2:13 for Adam was first formed, then Eve,
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,

imo,
Adam was not tempted by satan, Eve was. Eve had second hand knowledge of what God had told Adam and she even misquotes it 'nor touch'. Because she didn't believe her husband and did believe satan she was relegated to being under her husband's authority. They were one flesh and she did not consult the other half in this relationship, Adam, before accepting what satan had told her. Adam could have straightened the whole thing out if she had just asked him instead of going off on her own.

 

[WIP]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

 

[JLB]

Then could we say that the sin nature is simply man's desire to satisfy his own fleshy will rather than the desire to obey God's will.

They were clothed with Christ, though they were physically naked, as it was Christ who breathed the breath of life into them, whereby they became a living being. It is this same Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus that set's us free from the law of sin and death.

We too are clothed with Christ, though we are naked. Just because we take a shower to clean our physical bodies, doesn't mean have been "un-clothed" with Christ, though we have "un-clothed" to bathe.


And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

and again

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

I suspect Adam had a sinless, immortal body just like Jesus, as seen on the mount of transfiguration.

and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. Matthew 17:2


We also are looking forward to the day when we will have bodies like this.

Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34

and again

41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:41-43


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, that's correct.

It wasn't until Adam transgressed the word that God gave them, which at that time was the only law for mankind, that sin entered into the human race.

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

It was Adam's offense that caused judgement to come to all men.

Before this act of disobedience, Adam was sinless, and would pass on this sin-free nature to his offspring, and so on.


JLB

You say it was the only law for mankind. God's command IS a law. DO NOT, and what follows, is a law.
The offense was definitely disobedience. Genesis 3:17a

I never thought of it as Law and it has never been presented that way. I've always understood it more to be God trying to protect Adam. He wanted Adam to know only the good, to be innocent in all things.
Titus 1:15
But he did the one thing God told him not to do and ate the forbidden fruit. Now he knew the bad part too and was not innocent anymore. When you break one of God's laws there will always be consequences.
Adam broke his relationship to himself - he was ashamed and hid 3:10
He damaged his relationship with his wife - blaming her for sinful action - a future difficult life
He damaged his relationship with others - humans would now sin and not trust each other
He damaged his relationship with nature - Cursed is the ground - in toil you shall eat of it Genesis 3:17b
He damaged his relationship with God - No more Garden of Eden; Genesis 3:23

Just some thoughts.

Wondering

 

[ezrider]

Can you provide the Scripture to substantiate this statement? I've heard this before but when I read Genesis I get a different picture. Here's what I found in Genesis 3:1-3 NKJV.

Paul says she was deceived.
1Ti 2:13 for Adam was first formed, then Eve,
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,

Thanks Deb

 

[JLB]

You say it was the only law for mankind. God's command IS a law. DO NOT, and what follows, is a law.

Yes Ma'am.

I never thought of it as Law and it has never been presented that way. I've always understood it more to be God trying to protect Adam. He wanted Adam to know only the good, to be innocent in all things.
Titus 1:15
But he did the one thing God told him not to do and ate the forbidden fruit.

He partook from a source other than God, to gain knowledge.... and understanding.

The same Lord said the same thing, to the Pharisee's.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40

Jesus is the tree of Life, and being connected to Him, in relationship is eternal life... for the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus...

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3


JLB