Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[MarkT]

mark:



Thats what you get for thinking and not studying..

I usually think while I'm reading. It's a good habit to get into.

 

[Drew]

I'll tell you. Consider the law. You don't have to be a Jew to know the law. That's a fact.

True, but the Law of Moses was never applicable to Gentiles. So this is yet another reason to conclude that Paul is talking about Jews in Romans 7, and therefore not describing Christians in general. Paul describes the effect of the Law of Moses on the "I" - and the law would have no effect on a Gentile, since the Gentile was never under the Law in the first place.

You know the law, and I'm assuming you're not Jewish. Sure Paul was speaking to those who know the law, but you know the law, and I'm speaking to you.

No - this is not what the text says. Paul is speaking about the set of persons who know the Law, but the set of persons who are under the authority of the Law, that is to say Jews.

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Please - let's respect the text - the person who was under the law was the Jew.

 

[Drew]

And Paul was a Christian, and he said he could not do the good he wanted to do.

I thought I have already argued that the "I" here in Romans 7 is not Paul, even though that otherwise seem so obvious. Here is an argument that even though Paul is the writer of this letter, he actually uses the "I" to refer to non-believing Jews:

Paul uses the "I" in Romans 7 to identify himself with Israel - remember his grief expressed in Romans 9. If Paul wants to make an argument about Israel being in slavery to sin here – and I think that he does – the last thing he wants to do is use the term “they” with the strong implication of himself, as a Christian, standing over against them. They are his people and he does not to drive a wedge between himself and them. Thus the use of the “I”.

But there are other more compelling reasons to see that Paul is not speaking of himself as an individual but rather as a representative of his people, Israel:

I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Paul refers to the event "when the commandment came". That is a clear reference to Sinai and the delivery of the Torah to Moses, more than 1000 years before Paul was even born. You effectively have him saying "when I developed awareness of the commandment". But that is not what Paul is saying - beware the tendency to deform what Paul is saying.

A reference to the commandment "coming" means what it means – a commandment being delivered. And that happened at Sinai (e.g. “do not covet” as part of the 10 commandments), not in Paul’s lifetime. If Paul had meant to say "when I became aware of the commandment", that's what he would have said. Would we say “when the commandment to not hit our brother came” to denote our developing awareness, say at age 8, that it was not OK to hit our baby brother? No, we would not, and neither does Paul.

The reader may object that I am being too strict here and that Paul could have used such an expression to denote the moment when he became aware of the law. Fine. But this text clearly cannot work with the notion that the “I” is Paul as an individual:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

If the "I" here is Paul we have a huge problem. Note the tense. Paul, in the present as he writes Romans 7 is a wretched man who needs rescue? Of course not - Paul in the present has already been rescued (see Romans 8). I suggest this text alone undermines the possibility that the “I” in Romans 7 is Paul the individual.

But note how this problem disappears if we understand the "I" to be the nation of Israel - even as Paul writes, almost all of them stand outside of the gospel, needing rescue from death as the text says.

I suspect that you will suggest that I am guilty of the very same deforming of Paul’s words that I have criticized when I suggest that Paul uses the term "I" to denote the nation of Israel. Well, we have evidence of Paul using a reference to a single Jew in order to actually refer to the whole nation:

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

This is an argument about one Gentile and one Jew - at least literally. And yet it is otherwise clear that the Jew here being judged is a representative of Jews in general.

So there is indeed precedent for Paul speaking this way.

Besides, you have Paul saying that he cannot do good in his Christian state. I am not sure how you can stick with that - a Christian who cannot do good? Perhaps you might have a case if Paul had written that it was challenging or "difficult" to do good. But a Christian who cannot do good. There is no such animal.

You are doing what many people do - not honouring what Paul actually says. He says the "I" cannot do good, not that the "I" finds it hard to good. In any event, the matter is settled by what Paul writes about how Christ delivers the "I" from the state described in Romans 7.

 

[Drew]

By 'the good' I mean 'the good' according to 'the law'. See the word 'the' before the word 'good'? He is not saying he cannot do good, period. He said he could not do what is right according to the law.

True enough - but this is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that I am advancing, namely that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul himself but is rather his fellow (non-believing) Jews. It is, of course, the unbelieving Jew who is both under the Law and unable to follow it.

And you still have this problem - if Paul really is talking about an inability to do the Law, why would a Christian Jew (like Paul) still be in a state where he is unable to do all the moral activities prescribed by the Law.

Paul, as a Christian, is unable to refrain from adultery? From murder?

 

[Drew]

Can you will yourself to not lust? I can't. What if you saw a gorgeous woman topless? Even if you were to say to yourself, 'don't lust', you have already lusted. Too late! Or if you received a huge sum of money, could you will yourself to not covet? I can't. I would want to keep it.

The Christian can indeed "will themselve" to not lust after someone, and to not steal. By saying that the "I" here in Romans 7 is "Paul the Christian" you have backed yourself into a position where you have a Christian saying that he cannot refrain from lust.

I have never posted anything that forces me into the position of saying that a Christian does not struggle with sin. But what we have in Romans 7 is not a person who is struggling, but rather a person who is enslaved.

To buy into the notion that the Christian cannot help but sin is simply incoherent with so much other material in the New Testament - not least what Paul has written in Romans 8.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I usually think while I'm reading. It's a good habit to get into.

lol, thinking does not always lead to knowledge, one must be born again and have a sanctified mind to understand sanctified truth..

Have ye not read 2 tim 3:7

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I am afraid thats you my friend..

 

[savedbygrace57]

God has made vessels to be fitted for destruction..rom 9:

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

vessels,in scripture, when used of people, is not ever referring to nations, but individuals. Lets look at its usage in the NT:

Of persons in the service of God of Paul acts 9:

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

of Christian workers 2 tim 2:

21If a man [Not a Nation] therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

cp with rom 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

So don't believe those who are in error teaching that vessels of destruction does not refer to individuals, but to the nation of Israel or to jews as a nation.

used to refer to husband and wife 1 pet 3:

7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

God has made some individuals as vessels of destruction, they have no hope of salvation and mercy, that would run opposite of Gods purpose for them..

 

[MarkT]

lol, thinking does not always lead to knowledge, one must be born again and have a sanctified mind to understand sanctified truth..

Have ye not read 2 tim 3:7

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I am afraid thats you my friend..

I'm not a woman.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I'm not a woman.

I did not say you were.

 

[Drew]

vessels,in scripture, when used of people, is not ever referring to nations, but individuals. Lets look at its usage in the NT:

Scripturally, the image of God making clay vessels is consistently linked to God's treatment of the nation of Israel:

Consider this passage from Jeremiah 18:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.


From Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

Note that in the above text from Isaiah 30, the connection to Romans 9 is even tighter. Not only do we note Isaiah’s identification of the pot with Israel, we can appeal to the more refined point that this pot has broken or shattered. This coheres perfectly well with the argument in chapter 9 where Paul not only invokes the potter / pot metaphor, he makes the further point that some pots are “fitted for destructionâ€. Therefore, seeing the pots “fitted for destruction†as Israel maps cleanly to Isaiah 30 both in regard to the identity of the pot and in regard to what happens to it.

I do not deny that the image of the vessel can also be used of an individual. However, I believe that Paul uses the "vessels" image in Romans 9 to actually refer to "nations" (not individuals).

 

[Drew]

How do you know what the Hebrews believed? You were not there. You didn't escape from Egypt. You didn't wander in the desert for forty years. You were not a Jew living in Israel at the time Jesus was with us. What do you know about their world view.

Please - you could use this kind of argument to undermine any knowledge of history that anyone claims to have. I have studied this matter a little and have concluded that the Hebrew's conception of the human person is simply not one where a consciousness-bearing soul or spirit is "housed" in a physical body.

Of course, you have every right to ask me to make the case, and I hope to. But, likewise, you also cannot simply assume that the writers of scripture had the model of the human person that you are setting forth.

I know what David believed from reading David. I know what Soloman believed from reading the Psalms and the Proverbs. I know what the word of God was from reading the prophets. What do you know?

All right then, please make the case - show us where David or Solomon expressed the specific view of the human person that you are ascribing to.

Do you know what some Jews believed?

I have studied this matter and, yes, I believe I do know something about what the Jews of Paul's time believed. And, no, I do not need to have lived in their time to know at least something about their worldview.

The scholars base their theology on a consensus of opinion.

I doub this very much. You appear to be suggesting that scholars do not have "real data" on which to base their opinions. Are you suggesting that we cannot have historical knowledge that is anything other than mere "opinion". If so, all historical knowledge is called into question.

By saying the Hebrews did not believe in this dualism, you are making an appeal to a consensus of opinion and a false authority. You mentioned a guy named Wright I believe. Do you know it's a logical fallacy to appeal to a false authority? My standards are not your standards. My thinking is not your thinking.

Please stop with the patronizing. I am quite familiar with the notion of "appealing to authority". It is widely known that NT Wright is a qualified, respected, New Testament scholar. That in and of itself does not mean that his word is "gospel", but, unlike you, I am at least grounding my view in the work of an arguably qualified theologian / historian.

What credentialled persons will you put forth in respect to your position on these matters?

At the end of the day, I agree that this matter cannot be settled by appeals to authority. But invoking the views of a well-respected, qualified historian is entirely legitimate.

 

[Drew]

If men were to look back 2000 years from now, would they conclude that no one believed in this dualism today? Proabably, based on the writings of the scholars.

I am, of course, not denying that some human beings in some cultures embraced this "spirit - physical" distinction that you seem to embrace. But the issue is this: what did the Jews (the writer of the Bible) believe about this matter, at least at the time they were writing.

IAs for myself, I believe what the Bible says.

You obviously beg the question with this statement.

If If it sounds Greek to you, too bad. Do you have something against the Greeks?

Are you being serious? There is nothing in any of my posts that supports this misleading and misrepresenting question. Of course, I have nothing against the Greeks. And, equally, it is entirely beside the point. The real question is this: Was Paul writing from a primarily Jewish position? I am prepared to argue that the answer to this question is "yes".

 

[jasoncran]

jewish language(hebrew) and the culture around it is still very much alive. the modern hebrew tongue isnt all the different from the original.

greek of today isnt the same as koine greek the former is no longer spoken and many of its words are lost.

the only reason we can find alot of koine greek is that the early texts of the bible have been preserved and are easily or have been translated to english and other european languages.

 

[MarkT]

True, but the Law of Moses was never applicable to Gentiles. So this is yet another reason to conclude that Paul is talking about Jews in Romans 7, and therefore not describing Christians in general. Paul describes the effect of the Law of Moses on the "I" - and the law would have no effect on a Gentile, since the Gentile was never under the Law in the first place.


No - this is not what the text says. Paul is speaking about the set of persons who know the Law, but the set of persons who are under the authority of the Law, that is to say Jews.

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Please - let's respect the text - the person who was under the law was the Jew.

Didn't God destroy the ancient world in his anger? And then there was Sodom and Gomorrah. What is it about the law that you don't understand? The law was introduced into a lawless world. If God set the Israelites apart to make a people for himself, and he gave them his law to set them apart, does that mean God was OK with the violence and the licentiousness in the rest of the world? No. If all men did not receive the law, it does not mean the law was not in effect before Moses received it. You would think that sin was not in the world before Moses. In fact the reason why God gave men the law was sin - to keep them from sinning.

If God gave the Israelites his law saying if you keep my commandments you will live, but if you do not keep my commandments you will die, the implication here is that if they had not received the law, they would have died in their sins like all men before them. And like all men before them they would have been kept in prison until the day of judgment. But now, supposing they kept the commandments, they would live. So how is the law not applicable to all men if all men will be judged by the same law?

You admit that you know the law and Paul said he was speaking to those who know the law. So what excuse do you have? Your theology is based on who received the law. It doesn’t matter. And you’re ignoring everything Paul said about the flesh and sin. Saying Paul describes the effect of the law on the ‘I’ is a meaningless statement.

And as far as living under the law, the meaning of that is that the law was the law of the land. The Jews had the written code. They were bound by the law in their customs and traditions. I guess we would call their government a theocracy. But the law is spiritual, as Paul said. Notice Paul said, ’While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.’ I agree the Jews had the law, but now almost all men know the law, and the same principle applies to all who know the law. There may be some who don’t know the law. Nevertheless, all men will be judged by the law. But still you should understand what Paul is saying about the law and the flesh, especially ‘You shall not covet’, because he uses that law as an example to make his point.

I wonder how many Greeks and Romans knew the law at the time Paul was preaching. I imagine most of the Greeks who believed Paul either knew the law or had heard of the law before Paul came to them.

 

[MarkT]

I am, of course, not denying that some human beings in some cultures embraced this "spirit - physical" distinction that you seem to embrace. But the issue is this: what did the Jews (the writer of the Bible) believe about this matter, at least at the time they were writing.

Didn’t Paul write Paul’s letters? Didn’t Peter write Peter’s letters? Didn’t John write Revelation? If you want to know what they believed, read their letters.

Peter talks about the spirits in prison and angels committed to pits of nether gloom. And John saw the angel of the bottomless pit - in Greek he is called Apol’lyon. Sounds like Apollo doesn’t it?

Jesus said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jesus made the distinction and you know he did not lie. And when he appeared to the disciples Luke 24:36, they thought they saw a spirit. And Jesus said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;

Revelation 9:11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abad'don, and in Greek he is called Apol'lyon.

 

[Drew]

Didn't God destroy the ancient world in his anger? And then there was Sodom and Gomorrah. What is it about the law that you don't understand?

I do not understand your point. If you believe there is something I do not understand about the law, please let me know specifically what you mean. Are you suggesting I am mistaken in asserting that the Law of Moses was for Jews only? The Biblical arguments for this are clear - the Law of Moses was not given to all humanity, but to Jews only. Do you wish me to make the relevant case?

The law was introduced into a lawless world. If God set the Israelites apart to make a people for himself, and he gave them his law to set them apart, does that mean God was OK with the violence and the licentiousness in the rest of the world?

Of course not. But acknowledging this does not change the clear Biblical fact that the Law of Moses was given to Jews only.

If all men did not receive the law, it does not mean the law was not in effect before Moses received it. You would think that sin was not in the world before Moses. In fact the reason why God gave men the law was sin - to keep them from sinning.

I believe you are mistaken at several points here. First, it is clear beyond doubt that the Law of Moses was given to one people only - the people of the nation of Israel. Second, I do not deny that sin was in the world before Moses. Third, it is simply not the case that the Law was given to "keep people from sinning". In fact, Paul argues that the effect of the giving of the Law of Moses was to increase sin in Israel:

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

See - the Law actually energizes and empowers sin. It certainly does not keep sin in check as you are suggesting.

 

[mondar]

The purpose of the clay pots fit for destruction. (All quotes from the "American Standard")

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Paul makes up an imaginary opponent who complains. The complaint is that it is not fair for God to will someone to be evil and then judge him for that evil that he willed. Who can withstand God's will? It has always been curious to me that this is the complaint of so many (so called) Arminians. God cannot will evil to happen because that would make God evil. Had Paul lived in the 21st century, his opponent would not have been so imaginary. Paul answers this objection in two statements.

STATEMENT 1
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
The first thing Paul says is that it is fair for God to will evil to happen, and then judge that evil is because he is God, and he is creator. This passage is saying that because God is the creator, he has the right to will whatever he chooses.

To the natural man, this answer is hard to accept. It is saying that God can will evil to happen, and not be evil himself. One might wonder how can this be. This is addressed in the 2nd statement.

STATEMENT 2
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
In these verses, it asserts again that the basis of God's free will right to will what pleases him is because he is creator. God is the potter. He takes the same lump of clay (both vessels come from the same lump) and makes one pot fit only for destruction.

ILLUSTRATION---- I know I have used pieces of clay to shoot at. They are called "clay pigeons." My friends and I use shot guns and the clay pigeon is thrown out into the air as a target. They are made only for the purpose of to be broken in pieces by the shotgun shell. About 10 miles from my house, they have large tournaments . To the person who is most accurate, goes the glory of the tournament. Sounds like the end of verse 22, the clay pots are made for the glory of the potter.

Another comment.....
Isa 29:10 For Jehovah hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath he covered.
Isa 29:16 Ye turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, He made me not; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, He hath no understanding?
In verse 10, specific and individual people are named. Isaiah names prophets, heads, seers. These individuals are targeted with a spirit of deep sleep and closed eyes. In the context of Isaiah 29, this is a spiritual slumber that comes upon the leaders of Israel so that the nation comes under judgment. Then in verse 16 Isaiah uses the same pottery image as Paul uses. The leaders of Ariel, or the leaders of the nation think of the potter and the clay as equal. In other words, the leaders believe the potter has does not have any more rights then the clay.

Is this not the same objections Arminian's have in Romans 9? If the potter wills evil, and wills the clay to be a pot, fit for destruction, then there is something wrong. Isaiah would say this thinking equalizes the potter and the pots.

 

[MarkT]

True enough - but this is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that I am advancing, namely that the "I" in Romans 7 is not Paul himself but is rather his fellow (non-believing) Jews. It is, of course, the unbelieving Jew who is both under the Law and unable to follow it.

And you still have this problem - if Paul really is talking about an inability to do the Law, why would a Christian Jew (like Paul) still be in a state where he is unable to do all the moral activities prescribed by the Law.

Paul, as a Christian, is unable to refrain from adultery? From murder?

No. Paul said, 'For I know nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh.' Paul said it. Paul is the 'I'. Paul is the 'me'. Paul's own words refute your hypothesis. Can't you see you're making Paul say what fits your preconceived idea? No one reading Paul's letter would think Paul meant non believing Jews when he said sin dwelt dwelt within him. If he said sin dwells within the flesh, then instead of arguing he meant in Israel you need to reexamine your hypothesis and accept that dualism you reject.

Jesus said love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. He didn't say love God with your body. The point is the body is sinful. Have you ever committed murder in your heart? We get angry you know. The difference between us and other men is we don't return evil for evil. We forgive those who trespass against us. Have you ever lusted? Have you ever coveted, even admired someone else's things? If you haven't, you must lead a pretty sheltered life.

It's not to say Paul actually murdered anyone. But we are evil. We are capable of evil. So Paul said, 'So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.' As long as we are in the physical tent or body, we are susceptible to temptation. Sure we can resist the devil. But the point is the devil uses the weakness of the body to do right to his advantage. He knows he can get us to lust or to covet. He knows the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit Gal. 5:17 So he works on those desires. Now we pray God lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. And Paul goes further saying, 'Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

As long as we are stuck in this life, Christians will always need forgiveness. The Spirit continually washes us. Jesus intercedes for us. We should pray for forgiveness daily. John said, 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.' 1 John 1: 8-10.

 

[MarkT]

I do not understand your point. If you believe there is something I do not understand about the law, please let me know specifically what you mean. Are you suggesting I am mistaken in asserting that the Law of Moses was for Jews only? The Biblical arguments for this are clear - the Law of Moses was not given to all humanity, but to Jews only. Do you wish me to make the relevant case?


Of course not. But acknowledging this does not change the clear Biblical fact that the Law of Moses was given to Jews only.


I believe you are mistaken at several points here. First, it is clear beyond doubt that the Law of Moses was given to one people only - the people of the nation of Israel. Second, I do not deny that sin was in the world before Moses. Third, it is simply not the case that the Law was given to "keep people from sinning". In fact, Paul argues that the effect of the giving of the Law of Moses was to increase sin in Israel:

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

See - the Law actually energizes and empowers sin. It certainly does not keep sin in check as you are suggesting.

The effect is if you know it is wrong, and you do it, the trespass increases. If you do something you know is wrong, then you are guilty of breaking the law. It's worse than if you do something wrong not knowing it is against the law. God gave the Israelites the law to keep them from sin, but there's an order to the way God does things. Even knowing they would be disobedient, first God give them the law, then they were condemned for breaking the law. So the law is good if it is kept perfectly. But the effect of the law on the wicked is sin. So you could say the law was brought in so that the original trespass, Adam's, might increase. The original trespass came after God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it was against his commandment. Likewise the reason for the commandments - to increase the trespass.

God is just. First he gives the wicked a warning. He tells them, do not make idols, for example. They do it anyways. Plus they kill his servants, the prophets.

 

[MarkT]

Let's just say Paul was having trouble following the particular commandment he mentioned - 'You shall not covet'. He couldn't will himself to do the good wanted to do. He realized the physical body has desires at war with his desire to do good.

Good grief! It makes no sense to argue over the meaning of the word 'I'. 'I' is the person doing the speaking or writing.

It makes no sense to turn Paul upside down. It makes no sense to create an entire theology out of an upside down Paul.