Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

Sorry. That is not what Paul said. Paul said election depends on God's mercy. It doesn't depend upon man's will or exertion. And he says man's will. He doesn't say a Jewish man's will.

This is not a valid response to my argument. You assume that Paul then leverages that truth in order to make a statement about all mankind. You cannot, legitimately anyway do this. It is also possible that Paul establishes this general truth about God and his right to exercise and / or withhold mercy in the context of a specific situation. I think that Paul is indeed concerned with a specific situation - that sad state of Israel.

The fact that Paul refers to a "man" and not a "Jewish man" is entirely consistent with what I am asserting - that Paul indeed makes general statements in support of his real conclusion - that the general principle has specifically been instantiated in respect to Israel.

LOL How did you get back to the 'sad state of Israel'?

It isn't me who starts the chapter with the Israel problem. It is Paul.

It isn't me who concludes the chapter with a statement about God has set a stumbling stone in Zion, the very thing someone would say if they were concluding a treatment about something bad that has happened to Israel. Again it is Paul.

It isn't me who structures Romans 9 and 10 as an Israel history. It is, again, Paul.

So I am not sure what the "LOL" is about. What would really elicit a laugh would be for a writer to insert a general theology of election in the middle of a treatment that is clearly focused on Israel.

You, apparently, do find that odd. Well, I certainly do.

 

[Drew]

Paul said he had anguish in his heart for his kinsmen who didn't believe. According to your logic Paul should continue to talk about his feelings or he's a bad writer.

Yes - he would be a bad writer. When someone lays the problem of the sad state of Israel on the table, you do not then expect him to start talking about his feelings - you expect him to start talking about Israel.

Then he makes a statement about his people, the Israelites. He says, 'They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

So at this point, if you follow his train of thought, he is talking about the covenants and the promises. Nothing about the sad state of Israel.

Who were the covenants and promises relevant to? The Norwegians? People with big noses? No - they are relevant to Israel. Besides, you know as well as I do that the chapter ends with the statement that God has put a stumbling stone in Zion.

Is that a statement of Paul's "feelings"? No - it is a statement about God and Israel.

Is that a statement about all humanity? No - it is a statement about God and Israel.

Your position has a lot of problems - the chapter opens with Israel-specificity, closes with Israel-specificity and the all the stuff in the middle is a history of Israel.

It would be odd for Paul to insert a major theological doctrine in the middle of what is through and through an analysis of God's treatment of Israel.

 

[Drew]

At that point he is talking about the Gentiles and faith, etc.

Maybe so, but this is not the relevant point. Besides, even the statement about Gentiles and faith is part of a statement where Paul points out what has happened to the Jews. And then there is a statement which has clear Israel-specificity:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.

I know it may not serve your case well, but Paul is still clearly concerned with Israel and her "fall" / lost state here - the very thing that he opens the chapter with. Not to mention the clear Israel-history that is there from verse 6 forwards.

And you have the tough challenge of explaining why Paul would insert a general theology of election, with no Israel-specificity, when there is all this evidence that it is an Israel question that is on Paul's mind.

 

[Drew]

Is that all you see? Don't you see anything pertaining to election? That's what I mean. You're not reading Paul's letter. You're looking for names, patterns, parallels, evidence.

I trust you understand that the term "election" means choice. It does not mean "choice unto an eternal destiny". Yes there is election here in Romans 9 - I am arguing this very thing. I am saying that Paul is saying that Israel was elected to be the vessel where sin is accumulated and concentrated (through the Law of Moses) so that the world could be saved.

Sound crazy? Well let Paul speak in Romans 11:

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

Here the "they" who stumbled are obviously Jews. If you do not like the idea that God used the Law of Moses to make Israel stumble, with ultimate salvific implications for the world, it is with Paul that you have a disagreement, not me.

 

[MarkT]

You cannot simply claim "anyone knows that the law does not harden the heart" and use that "rule" to trump what Paul is saying. Paul says what he says! The giving of the Law produced covetous desires in him!

What you think Paul is saying is not necessarily what Paul is saying. I think you got Drew and Paul mixed up.

I never said that the Law was sin, I said - or rather I simply take Paul at his word when he says - the law produced covetous desires in him.

Now to clarify: Paul is saying that the Law gives sin energy and power. What he says here in Romans 7, and in 1 Cor 15 cannot be read as statements that the law simply reveals sin. Many try to make that case - but they bend and morph what Paul says in the process. I take it as self-evident that if a person is given a law that makes them more sinful, this function to harden them. Perhaps you disagree with with this.

I do disagree. First of all the hardened heart may be disobedient, but it's not the law that hardens the heart. Sin works through the law. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul is tying death and sin and the law together to say the law gives sin the power of death. In Romans 7, he put it another way - our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. Romans 7:5 So it wasn't the law but sin working in our flesh that produced death. The second point is sin doesn't harden the heart to disbelief. While I agree the law makes a person more sinful, I don't agree it causes them to disbelieve. That would be the LORD casting out LORD.

Paul said, through the law comes knowledge of sin. He didn't say the law hardens us to disbelief.

Fine, forget about that. The important point is that Paul is saying that the Law gives energy, life, and power to sin - it does not simply reveal it. So if this is true - it easy to see how, in Romans 9, Paul could see the Law as being the cause for Israel's unbelief - that the law caused sin to grow in national Israel (or at least in many Jews). And this explains why they are in the sad state they are in. This still leads us to the conclusion that the vessels of desctruction are these Jews, even if you do not want to say they are specifically hardened.

The law exists to this day and it doesn't do any such thing. So your argument fails. To say that Paul sees the law as being the cause of Israel's unbelief is also false. It's your understanding, not mine. Paul never said any such thing. In fact, he said the hardening was a mystery to him. He said, "I want you to understand this mystery, a hardenening has come upon a part of Israel". Romans 11:25 Paul calls the hardening a mystery. He wants us to understand it is to let the Gentiles in. Nevertheless, if Paul knew the law caused the hardening, he would not have called it a mystery. He would have said the law caused it.

It is through the law that sin is shown to be sin. The sinful heart might be hardened to sin, but then again, we were all sinners before we believed. The law didn't harden us to disbelieve.

Now to this statement of yours:


What Paul is saying is the commandment made everything Paul wanted coveting

You are doing the very thing that many people do - introduce subtle alterations into what Paul actually wrote to have him say something else. What you assert here is simply not a legitimate reading of this text:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

The text does not say what you say it says - it does not say that the "law" functioned to identify Paul's sinful thoughts as "coveting". The text says that sin, through the Law, produced covetous desire in Paul.

Now unless you are prepared to take Paul at his word, and not morph what he says into something else, we are probably at an impasse.

You could say sin produced a desire for other people's things if you think of sin as an inherent trait, or something like that, which only comes alive when you gain the knowledge of the law. Paul said once he was alive apart from the law. I'm thinking he means when he was a kid and he didn't know the law.

The RSV says, ‘it wrought in me all kinds of covetousness’, which is like saying he was filled with sin. But he isn’t blaming the law of God for producing his covetousness. He sees in himself another law at war with the law of his mind. He says, ‘with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin’. Romans 7:25

Paul is saying his sinful flesh is holding him captive to the law of sin. Perhaps he is talking about an addiction or something.

It's just common sense. The law doesn't harden the heart. It is sin working in our flesh that makes us law breakers.

 

[smaller]

It's just common sense. The law doesn't harden the heart. It is sin working in our flesh that makes us law breakers.

Glad to see someone here has come to the table of simple fact on this matter.

 

[MarkT]

No. This simply cannot be true in light of this statement from Paul, if nothing else:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,

The Law most definitely does not give sin the power to kill. Paul here says that sin can and does kill apart from law.

It was through Adam's trespass or sin that death entered into the world. This supports my understanding. The law increased the trespass.

 

[Drew]

What you think Paul is saying is not necessarily what Paul is saying. I think you got Drew and Paul mixed up.

No Mark.

Here is what Paul writes, not me:

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind

This is what it is! Don't try to tell the readers that this is not a statement that the Law gave sin the opportunity to do something. And sin did indeed "do" something.

What did it do? Reveal sin to Paul?

No! It produced coveting in Paul

I am sorry you do not accept this, but this statement is what it is.

 

[Drew]

It was through Adam's trespass or sin that death entered into the world. This supports my understanding. The law increased the trespass.

I never denied this. My post was a response to your incorrect assertion that the Law brings about death. It does not - Paul says that sin brings about death.

But in any event, you seem to be agreeing with me - the Law of Moses increases the trespass. And it does not do so simply by revealing "more sin". Paul means what he says in chapter 7 - the sin used an opportunity provided by, yes, the law in order to produce, not reveal but produce, coveting in Paul.

 

[MarkT]

Originally Posted by MarkT
The LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart several times. How did he do it? Did he give Pharaoh the law? No. It even goes beyond the heart dulled by hearing or the heart hardened by sin. The LORD did it.

quoteI have already argued that I do need to my assertion that "the law energizing sin" if essentially equivalent to, or necessarily leads to, "hardening". The relevant point is that the Law gives energy and power to sin, and this is enough to support my case that the "vessels of destruction" are Jews and Jews only, subject to the sin-inducing influence of the law.

Now I have dealt with the Pharoah issue before. The fact that Pharoah was hardened without the Law of Moses does not mean that God cannot use the Law of Moses to harden the Jew or, if you like, make him more sinful, and not just by the effect of the Law revealing sin.

Hardened doesn't mean more sinful. The LORD didn't make Pharaoh more sinful. Pharaoh's heart was hardened so that he would not listen to Moses and Aaron. The idea is that Pharoah was unmoved by the word of God. He didn't believe Moses. He said, 'Who is the LORD that I should heed his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover I will not let Israel go. Ex. 5:2

The hardened heart is unrepentant, unable to understand; it does not not see, it will not listen.

 

[MarkT]

I have already argued that I do need to my assertion that "the law energizing sin" if essentially equivalent to, or necessarily leads to, "hardening". The relevant point is that the Law gives energy and power to sin, and this is enough to support my case that the "vessels of destruction" are Jews and Jews only, subject to the sin-inducing influence of the law.

Now I have dealt with the Pharoah issue before. The fact that Pharoah was hardened without the Law of Moses does not mean that God cannot use the Law of Moses to harden the Jew or, if you like, make him more sinful, and not just by the effect of the Law revealing sin.

Hardened doesn't mean more sinful. The LORD didn't make Pharaoh more sinful. Pharaoh's heart was hardened so that he would not listen to Moses and Aaron. The idea is that Pharoah was unmoved by the word of God. He didn't believe Moses. He said, 'Who is the LORD that I should heed his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover I will not let Israel go. Ex. 5:2

The hardened heart is unrepentant, unable to understand; it does not not see, it will not listen, it does not believe.

 

[MarkT]

Originally Posted by MarkT 
Paul's purpose is not to retell the history of Israel per se.

Circular argument.

The text is what it is Mark. You cannot simply presume to know what Paul's purpose and ignore the manifest fact that Romans 9:6 to the middle of Romans 10 is a condensed re-telling of the history of Israel. I can post the detailed case for this if you like, but is it a coincidence that we start with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses and Pharoah, then quotes from Old Testament texts that speak of exile for, yes, Israel, and restoration of yes, Israel. Then in chapter 10, Paul is still talking about Israel and her status up to the present time.

It’s not a fact. Furthermore, saying it’s a condensed history of Israel is not saying anything Paul said. Paul is not retelling the history of Israel. In this part of his letter, Paul is first saying he has great sorrow for his kinsmen by race who did not believe God’s Son, but God’s word had not failed, and he goes on to say how and why God’s word continued. He said it was the children of the promise who were reckoned as descendants. God promised Abraham a son - Isaac. Abraham believed God.

So all who believe God are reckoned as his children; all who are called, both Jew and Greek, because God is not God of Jews only, all who hear and believe. Even before Rebecca’s children were born and had done nothing good or bad, God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”. Jacob was called. Esau wasn’t. One might ask why God hated Esau who hadn’t done anything? In the next part of his letter, Paul is saying there is no injustice on God’s part. God has mercy on whomever he has mercy. He raised up Pharaoh only to harden Pharaoh’s heart and make him refuse to let the Israelites go. Then he destroyed him. Was Pharaoh a vessel of wrath made for destruction? I think so. Then Paul asks why does God still find fault with man if man can not resist his will? His answer - who are you, a man, to answer back to God. God created man. Man is the moulded talking back to his moulder saying, “Why have you made me thus?” The potter has a right over the clay to make out of the same lump (Abraham or Adam who was the first lump) one vessel for beauty and one for menial use. Then Paul asks this big controversial question ,- what if God made vessels to show his wrath and his power, and he endures these vessels with much patience in order to make his glory known to the vessels of mercy.

It’s not a Jew specific question. The vessels of mercy might be Christians hiding Jews. The vessels of wrath might be Gentiles killing Jews or Muslims killing Jews or Muslims killing Christians or even Christians killing Christians.

To call this a retelling of the history of Israel is to not see at all.

 

[Drew]

I do disagree. First of all the hardened heart may be disobedient, but it's not the law that hardens the heart. Sin works through the law.

I believe that I have already backed off from the "law hardens the heart" position. While I think that such a view is correct, to assert it is really not necessary for my position. So I am happy to let that go. You agree here that sin works through the law. But Paul is something something much more specific - that sin actually exploits the law to produce covetous desires in the Jew:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.

I am not saying the law is bad. But Paul needs to be taken seriously - the law functions as a catalyst that energizes sin and "makes things worse". In the past I have used the phrase "the law hardens the heart" as a shorthand expression. Perhaps that was misleading. In any event, the important point is that the Law has this "negative" effect of empowering and energizing sin, not merely revealing it.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul is tying death and sin and the law together to say the law gives sin the power of death.

This cannot be correct - that the law gives sin the power of death. As I have pointed out to another poster, Paul believes that sin produces death with or without the law:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,

I do not see how there can be any doubt, Paul believed that sin produced death from Adam to Moses, that is before the Law was given.

Now here is what Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:

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

He is not saying that the law produces death - how could he without contradicting the text I just provided? He is saying that sin produces death but that the Law energizes or gives power to sin.

 

[Drew]

In Romans 7, he put it another way - our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. Romans 7:5 So it wasn't the law but sin working in our flesh that produced death. The second point is sin doesn't harden the heart to disbelief. While I agree the law makes a person more sinful, I don't agree it causes them to disbelieve. That would be the LORD casting out LORD.

Paul said, through the law comes knowledge of sin. He didn't say the law hardens us to disbelief.

First of all, agree with you with that the Law does not harden to disbelief - but for a Jew (only Jews are under the Law despite what smaller will tell us) who is already "in a state of disbelief", the Law will indeed make sin more powerful in his life.

Now you say that the Law makes a person "more sinful" but I suspect you really mean "the law reveals the sin that would not otherwise be known". That is true, but it is not all that is true - the law functions to energize and empower sin, as Romans 7 teaches and as 1 Corinthians 15 teaches.

Paul says what he says - in Romans 7, he assert that sin leverages the law to produce sinful desire in the Jew. This is not simply the "revealing" of sin, it is more than than.

The fact that the Law does indeed give knowledge of sin does not mean that it does not also have this strange "sin-empowering" effect that Paul speaks of at several places.

 

[Drew]

The law exists to this day and it doesn't do any such thing. So your argument fails.

You are clearly mistaken. Paul is quite clear at a number of places that the Law of Moses is simply no longer in force:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

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.

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Do you still maintain that the Law of Moses is still in force. I am talking about the Law of Moses (as is Paul in all the above statements) - the written code which, among other things, prohibits the eating of screech owls and requires adulterers to be stoned. I am not mocking the Law, merely pointing out the implications of your view that the Law is still in force.

Now Paul does indeed speak of a certain "law" being established at the end of Romans 3. But, that is certainly not the Law of Moses. It has clearly been "retired".

 

[Drew]

Originally Posted by MarkT 
Paul's purpose is not to retell the history of Israel per se.

It’s not a fact. Furthermore, saying it’s a condensed history of Israel is not saying anything Paul said. Paul is not retelling the history of Israel.

The textual evidence is compelling - what we have in Romans 9 though the first bit of 10 is indeed a history of Israel. So unless Paul put the entire history there "by accident", it is indeed a "history of Israel". How people can deny this is astonishing. Well here are the details if you really need them:

Romans 9 through the first half of Romans 10 is a re-telling of the entire covenant history of Israel from Abraham to the exile and beyond. To the extent that this is shown to be the case, the view that the potter metaphor is a treatment of the election of some to loss and others to salvation is severely undermined. If Paul’s focus is God’s dealing with Israel, it is highly implausible that he would veer off topic to set forth his beliefs about the pre-destination of individual persons to salvation or loss, a matter with no specific connection to the Israel question.

Paul’s re-telling of the narrative of Israel is detailed and is presented in perfect chronological sequence and is summarized following:

· In chapter 9, verses 1 to 5, Paul expresses his grief at the state of his fellow Jews. So we already have an indication that what is to come will have an Israel focus;

· In verses 7 through 13, we get Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob. This is the beginning of the Israel story, set forth in precisely the correct sequence;

· In verses 15 through 18, we get Moses, Pharoah, and the events associated with the exodus;

· In verse 20, Paul is clearly alluding to the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah and their declarations that, like a potter, God has the right to mold Israel as He sees fit. This alone should be a strong indication that the vessels of destruction are unbelieving Jews – Paul uses the potter metaphor in accordance with Biblical precedent. It is used here in Romans 9, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah, in relation to Israel. It is only because people do not know their Bibles that they see the vessels of destruction as having no Israel-specificity. But, either way, note how we have moved past the exodus and are now in the times of the prophets – the covenant history continues.

· In verse 25, Paul quotes from Hosea 2, a text which deals with the threat of exile and the promise of restoration. And what happens at the time of restoration – God will say to those who were not His people (read: the Gentiles) that they are now indeed part of His family. This is clearly an allusion to various covenant promises in Genesis where Abraham is told that his seed – the Jews – will be “a light and blessing to the nationsâ€.

· In verses 27 and then again in verse 29, we have a reference to Isaiah’s teaching about a remnant who will come out from exile.

· And, of course, verses 31 to 33 bring us to Paul’s time – the Jews have stumbled over the Christ.

· So, in chapter 9 we have a detailed re-telling of Israel’s story, from Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to the exodus, to God’s warning about reshaping Israel like a pot, to exile and the promise of restoration, and finally to the Jewish rejection of the Christ.

· But the story does not end there. In 10:1-3, Paul continues with his treatment of the sad state of Israel in the present time (that is, Paul’s time). Clearly, the Jews are still in exile, even if they are physically back in Palestine.

· Now every Jew who knows his Old Testament should have been able to predict what comes after exile – covenant renewal! And that is exactly where Paul takes us. In Romans 10:6, he quotes from a famous passage from Deuteronomy that describes the mercy after exile.

· This is Paul’s vision and hope for the future of his kinsmen – that a remnant will escape the exile of their present unbelief and join the Gentile believer in proclaiming, as per Romans 10:13, that whoever (even the Jew!) calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Now, is this all a coincidence? Has Paul re-told the entire narrative of Israel, presenting all its important elements in the correct order, without intending to make an argument about how God is dealing with Israel? Of course not.

So, why would Paul interrupt this detailed and complex story of Israel, right in the middle of it (Romans 9:20), to insert an abstract theological statement about the pre-destination of individuals to an eternal fate, a matter with no Israel-specificity whatsoever? That simply does not make sense. The vessels of destruction are clearly unbelieving Jews. This connects to Paul’s lament about the Jews at the beginning of chapter 9. He explains the sad state of the Jews by explaining that God has hardened them, like a potter hardens his pot.

The potter account is not an abstract, non-historical treatment about God electing some to salvation and some to loss, before time even begins. The entire treatment here is clearly a history. It is the history of God’s dealing with Israel. Why would Paul send us back to the beginning of time (when the alleged “pre-destination†takes place) right in the middle of what is clearly an historical account?

Well, he is doing no such thing. The potter account is part of that history – it is Paul telling us that God has hardened Israel to bring salvation to the world.

 

[MarkT]

I believe that I have already backed off from the "law hardens the heart" position. While I think that such a view is correct, to assert it is really not necessary for my position. So I am happy to let that go. You agree here that sin works through the law. But Paul is something something much more specific - that sin actually exploits the law to produce covetous desires in the Jew:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.

I am not saying the law is bad. But Paul needs to be taken seriously - the law functions as a catalyst that energizes sin and "makes things worse". In the past I have used the phrase "the law hardens the heart" as a shorthand expression. Perhaps that was misleading. In any event, the important point is that the Law has this "negative" effect of empowering and energizing sin, not merely revealing it.

Originally Posted by MarkT 
In 1 Cor. 15, Paul is tying death and sin and the law together to say the law gives sin the power of death.

This cannot be correct - that the law gives sin the power of death. As I have pointed out to another poster, Paul believes that sin produces death with or without the law:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,

I do not see how there can be any doubt, Paul believed that sin produced death from Adam to Moses, that is before the Law was given.

Now here is what Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:

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

He is not saying that the law produces death - how could he without contradicting the text I just provided? He is saying that sin produces death but that the Law energizes or gives power to sin.

As I see it, before the law was given, men sinned. Cain slew Abel. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sin.

When the law was given or written down, then men knew sin, whereas before it was given, men transgressed the law but they didn’t know sin. The law brought men the knowledge of sin. Now, as Paul said, sin was in the world before the law was given. So when Moses gave the Israelites God’s law, he was telling them what God required. He was telling them what God hated, what God wanted. I don’t think killing, for instance, was ever what God wanted.

But at this point men knew it was a sin ( a legal term for a transgression which carries a penalty), whereas before they did not know. But it was always so. And sin always killed.

What God hated was always an abomination in his sight - violence, killing, men lying with men, lying, stealing, greed, coveting, disobedience. It’s just that now it was spelled out in a written code.

You say sin produces death with or without the law. I agree men died without the written law, but sin killed them nevertheless Therefore the law was in effect before it was written. It was the law that gave sin the power of death.

Even the godless know some things are wrong. Therefore I think the law always existed, even before it was written. Perhaps it is written on the heart.

I don’t know if killing was against the law before the law was written down. Lot knew men lying with men was wrong. Abraham had a sense of what was right.

I guess deep down people know killing is wrong, but what they don’t know is it is against the law of God, and the law carries a penalty - death.

When I say the law I mean the ten commandments. When I read Leviticus, I get the feeling God is telling us what is good for us; like washing your hands before eating and eating uncooked meat or anything with its life blood in it. They didn’t know about germs and viruses back then, but when they followed the ordinances they were doing the right things. There may be some things we still don’t know about the foods we eat that we might learn from Leviticus.

 

[Drew]

To say that Paul sees the law as being the cause of Israel's unbelief is also false. It's your understanding, not mine. Paul never said any such thing.

I do not believe I ever said that the law caused Israel's unbelief. But if I did, I am prepared to back off that statement. But what I have shown is that the Law of Moses "makes things worse" in the sense that it energizes and empowers sin.

In fact, he said the hardening was a mystery to him. He said, "I want you to understand this mystery, a hardenening has come upon a part of Israel". Romans 11:25 Paul calls the hardening a mystery. He wants us to understand it is to let the Gentiles in. Nevertheless, if Paul knew the law caused the hardening, he would not have called it a mystery. He would have said the law caused it.

As a number of texts clearly show, Paul believes that the Law energizes sin. If you disagree, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul. The texts, if actually taken seriously at their fine-grained detail are quite clear - the Romans 7 in particular where Paul says that sin leverages an opportunity provided by the Law to produce coveting in Paul. Yes, Paul calls it a mystery, but that hardly means that he is denying this effet whereby the Law energizes and empowers sin. Analogy. I could say its a mystery to me that my friend's marriage made him more wild and irresponsible, not less. It's a mystery, yes, but it is decidedly not a denial that, in fact, this person's marriage had this counter-intuitive effect.

It is through the law that sin is shown to be sin.

No one is denying this. But you seem to impy that this is all that the Law does. Paul says it does more than this - it energizes and empowers sin.

 

[Drew]

You could say sin produced a desire for other people's things if you think of sin as an inherent trait, or something like that, which only comes alive when you gain the knowledge of the law. Paul said once he was alive apart from the law. I'm thinking he means when he was a kid and he didn't know the law.

I doubt it. Paul isn't actually thinking of himself in this passage even though he does use the term "I". Instead, I suggest that Paul is speaking of the prototypical Jew through history. Paul refers to the "coming" of the law. When did the law come. At Sinai, hundreds of years before Paul was born.

Now I politely suggest that I am honouring what Paul actually says. The law does not come when you learn about it, it comes when it comes! That is to say, it comes when it is enacted or is otherwise given to the people. And that happened at Sinai. Paul uses the "I" as a rhetorical device to refer to all Jews. There is precedent for him doing so, and I can give you the argument if you want.

Besides, Paul cannot be writing about himself in particular in Romans 7. And the reason is this. Towards the end of the chapter, he makes statements about how "he cannot do good" in the present tense. Paul, in the present, unable to do good? Impossible - the Christian most certainly can do good. The "I" in Romans 7 is about the unbelieving Jew living under the Law of Moses.

The RSV says, ‘it wrought in me all kinds of covetousness’, which is like saying he was filled with sin. But he isn’t blaming the law of God for producing his covetousness.

Mark, he writes what he writes!:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

This is about taking Paul at his word. The law here is described as a thing which provided an opportunity for sin to produce covetous desire.

The statement is what it is - the Law functions as a catylist that enables and empowers sin. Later on he writes:

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death

Please accept what the text is actaully saying - the Law give sin the power to deceive Paul and "kill" him. No matter how much we don't like it, if we are to take Paul at his word, we must face the fact that the Law has this strange effect on the Jew - it gives energy and power to sin.

Again, from 1 Cor 15:

"the power of sin is the Law"

 

[smaller]

The statement is what it is - the Law functions as a catylist that enables and empowers sin. Later on he writes:

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death

Please accept what the text is actaully saying - the Law give sin the power to deceive Paul and "kill" him. No matter how much we don't like it, if we are to take Paul at his word, we must face the fact that the Law has this strange effect on the Jew - it gives energy and power to sin.

Again, from 1 Cor 15:

"the power of sin is the Law"

Funny how you can apply that factual principle to the power of SIN in the JEW and avoid it for everyone else who also have 'sin.'