What was the Law that was ADDED?

[Eccl12and13]

What Was the Law That was ADDED?

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.†Gal 3:19

Paul tells us that a Law was ADDED because of transgressions. Before going on, let’s review what a transgression is:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.â€Â
1 John 3:4

So, a person who ‘transgresseth’ the law is someone who is breaking the law, which is SIN!

So what Paul was saying in Gal. is that a law was added because of the breaking of laws!

Let’s read a bit more of what Paul said in Gal.:

“…till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.†Gal. 3:19.

So Paul also tells us that the Law that was ADDED was to be around until the seed should come.

Here are a few questions about the above passage:

1. Which law was added because of the breaking of the Law?

2. Why did the Law have to be added?

3. God gave us Laws to be observed FOREVER. Which of the (2) laws, if either, are to be FOREVER? The one added or the ones that were transgressed?

4. Who or what is, “…the seed to come.†Gal. 3:19?

5. How do you tell the difference between the laws that were transgressed and the law that was added when reading Paul’s writings?

Let’s remember the warning Peter gave us about Paul’s writings when answering these questions:

[15] “… even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their wn destruction.†2 Peter 3

REMEMBER: If you don't fully understand Paul's writings it could lead to your own destruction.

 

[Drew]

I believe that the "Law: Paul refers to here is basically the totality of the Torah - the 613 "rules".

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew:

When Paul says, "It was added", it would seem to mean that something 'additional' was put in place with what was already there. And what was, 'already', were laws. The reason I say that is because of the term Paul used; 'transgressions'

If you really break down the verse, the word 'transgression', means the breaking of laws. The bible tells us the same:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.â€Â
1 John 3:4

Knowing that transgression is breaking the law, now when the verse is read, we can see that 'another' law was added to what was already established.

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of (the breaking of the laws), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.†Gal 3:19

And this is the reason for the questions.

1. What was the law that was 'added'?
2. Why was it added?
3. How long was the law that was added to be observed?
4. Who or what is the seed to come?
5. Knowing that Paul is talking about at least (2) laws how do we tell the difference while reading his writings?

And as for the warning from Peter about Paul, I, for one, do wrestle with and sometimes have problems understanding some of Paul's writings. And I'm sure if we miss the point on some of them it could very well lead to our own destruction.

Thanks for reading and replying to the post.

 

[Rick W]

Expanding on Drew's post, he is correct...

The covenant with Abraham was based upon the token of circumcision. This covenant was the centerpiece of God's relationship with His people.
God's promise. - "thou shalt be a father of many nations."


Remembering His covenant God brought His people out of Egypt and the Law given to Moses (the Law added) became an additional element of that relationship, the human responsibility in much more detail.


Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:


Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.



Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

 

[Drew]

When Paul says, "It was added", it would seem to mean that something 'additional' was put in place with what was already there. And what was, 'already', were laws.

If you check the Greek, the word "added" does not necessarily entail this notion that "something" was already there. That is one way to read the Greek word, but there is another way that does not require us to see that something was "already there".

Knowing that transgression is breaking the law, now when the verse is read, we can see that 'another' law was added to what was already established.

I agree that transgression is the breaking of the law, but this does not establish that Galatians 3 is talking about the addition of Torah to some other laws that were already in place.

1. What was the law that was 'added'?

I still think that the "Law" is here is Torah .

2. Why was it added?

It was added to make Israel more sinful - I know that this will raise eyebrows, I will explain if you want.

3. How long was the law that was added to be observed?

It is not easy to answer this question. In very brief form, I will assert that, upon Jesus death and resurrection, God retired the Torah, at least as a set of prescriptive rules and practices that marked the Jew out from the pagan.

4. Who or what is the seed to come?

I believe that the seed referred to here is the Christ.

5. Knowing that Paul is talking about at least (2) laws how do we tell the difference while reading his writings?

I do not believe that Paul is talking about two laws - the Jews had only one Law, the Torah.

 

[Eccl12and13]

"I still think that the "Law" is here is Torah."

If that is the case, how was the Torah 'added' to the Torah?

And yes, " It was added to make Israel more sinful.", did raise an eyebrow or two! Please explain.

Also not understanding what you are saying when you say, "God retired the Torah"

Thanks

 

[Drew]

"I still think that the "Law" is here is Torah."

If that is the case, how was the Torah 'added' to the Torah?

As has as already been argued, the Greek term that is rendered as "add" does not force us to conclude that the Law was added to another, already existing law.

"And yes, " It was added to make Israel more sinful.", did raise an eyebrow or two! Please explain.

Also not understanding what you are saying when you say, "God retired the Torah"

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful Torah is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear - Torah cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Torah is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Torah to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Torah as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Torah has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more full sin, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Torah was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Torah to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Torah is then retired with honour.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Isn't what you do when you say, 'Paul argues, cryptically perhaps', of your own interpretation? The scriptures warns us of such:

2Pet.1
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

As far as your statement:

"As has as already been argued, the Greek term that is rendered as "add" does not force us to conclude that the Law was added to another, already existing law."

True, it may not force us to, and it shouldn't. What will let us know the meaning is based on how it is used in the verse.

Just as the word glasses alone could mean, 'glasses' used to drink with, or, 'glasses' used for seeing, it's meaning is based on how it is used in a sentence.

We know that transgressions means, 'the breaking of the law'. We know it because the scriptures tells us:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.â€Â
1 John 3:4

So when we read Gal.3:19, Paul is not being cryptic;

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions (the breaking of the laws), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.†Gal 3:19

Based on sound scriptures we can conclude that a set of laws were added because of the breaking of laws.

2 Tim.3[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Again, let's not forget Peter's warning of Paul's writings:

2Pet.3
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And though Paul's writings can be hard to understand, he let's us know that Christs' is not;

2Cor.11
[3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[Drew]

Isn't what you do when you say, 'Paul argues, cryptically perhaps', of your own interpretation? The scriptures warns us of such:

2Pet.1
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This is not a valid critique since it could be equally applied to anybody' s perspective on what Paul is saying. Paul is certainly allowed to make points by "implication" - he clearly does many times. When I said that Paul was being cryptic, I was really asserting that he was making a point in a specifically implicit manner. And that has to be allowed, otherwise we rule out the doctrine of the Trinity - something that is never explicitly asserted in the Scriptures.

We know that transgressions means, 'the breaking of the law'. We know it because the scriptures tells us:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.â€Â
1 John 3:4

OK, with you so far.

So when we read Gal.3:19, Paul is not being cryptic;

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions (the breaking of the laws), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.†Gal 3:19

Based on sound scriptures we can conclude that a set of laws were added because of the breaking of laws.

On what precise grounds have you conclude that the laws were added because other laws were being broken? What is your evidence that other laws were being broken before the Torah?

 

[Drew]

I think I just realized what your argument is. You are basically making this case:

1. Sin is the breaking of some law;

2. Sin was in the world prior to the giving of the Torah;

3. Therefore, there has to have a law in place prior to the giving of the Torah.

I understand what you mean, but Paul is clear that, despite John's statement that "sin lawlessness", Paul shows here in Romans 5 that he believes that sin exists and is operative even in the absence of 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 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

When the author of 1 John declares sin to be lawlessness, he must mean it in a sense that allows sin to be active and real even in the absence of law. Otherwise, we have a contradiction with Paul who clearly believes that sin exists even in the absence of law.

In other words, I suggest that John is saying "sin is lawlessness" but is also something else.

 

[Eccl12and13]

"And that has to be allowed, otherwise we rule out the doctrine of the Trinity - something that is never explicitly asserted in the Scriptures."

Another debate altogether, but I will leave you with something you brought up, if it's not asserted between the books of Gen. to Rev. where did it come from? Yet another warning from the scripturres:

Mark 7;
[9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
[13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

But on to the topic at hand. Actually all of, at least, the 10 commandments were in effect before God gave them to Moses to give to the nation of Israel.

And Paul even lived by those same laws after the death of Christ:

Rom. 7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

So when you say, "that he (Paul) believes that sin exists and is operative even in the absence of law:", just which laws are you referring to that are now absent?

Here's sometihng to think about; could the law "that was added' now be the law that is absence?

After all, the rest of the verse goes on to say, "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...", Gal. 3:19

So, as you sugessted, when Christ came, what became of the law that was added?

 

[Drew]

"But on to the topic at hand. Actually all of, at least, the 10 commandments were in effect before God gave them to Moses to give to the nation of Israel.

What is your Scriptural grounds for this statement?

And Paul even lived by those same laws after the death of Christ:

Rom. 7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

So when you say, "that he (Paul) believes that sin exists and is operative even in the absence of law:", just which laws are you referring to that are now absent?

Romans 7 is a reflection by Paul on the plight of the Jew under the Torah - it is not a description of the expereince of any Christian. But either way, I am not sure what your point is in respect to Romans 7. That Romans 7 cannot be about the Christian is clearly demonstrated as follows:

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is being described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

There is lots more evidence - Romans 7 cannot be a description of the Christian.

Paul believes that the letter of the Torah has been retired.

"Here's sometihng to think about; could the law "that was added' now be the law that is absence?

After all, the rest of the verse goes on to say, "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...", Gal. 3:19

So, as you sugessted, when Christ came, what became of the law that was added?

I think that I agree with this. Torah was given at Sinai and it is retired by the work on the cross.

 

[Eccl12and13]

"But on to the topic at hand. Actually all of, at least, the 10 commandments were in effect before God gave them to Moses to give to the nation of Israel.

What is your Scriptural grounds for this statement?

Here are just a few:

Josh. 24 [2] And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. IDOLATRY BEFORE MOSES!

Exod. 20 [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Gen. 4 [7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
[8] And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. MURDER BEFORE MOSES!

Exod. 20 [13] Thou shalt not kill.

Gen. 12 [13] Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
[[17] And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
[18] And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
[19] Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. LYING BEFORE MOSES!

Gen. 39 7] And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
[8] But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;
[9] There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? ADULTERY BEFORE MOSES!

NOTICE: Even the Egyptians knew that ADULTERY was a sin.

Exod. 20 [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exod. 20 [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Gen. 30 [31] And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock:
[32] I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
[33] So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me. STEALING BEFORE MOSES!

Exod. 20 [15] Thou shalt not steal.

Lev. 18: [21] And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
[27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) PROFANING GODS NAME BEFORE MOSES!

Exod. 20 [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exod. 16[1] And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.
[5] And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.
[22] And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.
[23] And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
[26] Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

Exod. 20[8] Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
[11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God’s laws were in effect before there was man!

2 Peter 2 [4] For if God spared not the angels that sinned,

Rev. 12 [7] And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
[8] And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

Exod. 20 [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I can see where the phrase, "Silver tongued devil", comes from now. The angels choose Satan over God!


Concerning the following:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)
These statements are inconsistent.

And this would be true...if Paul were only talking about (1) set of laws. Which further proves my point that Paul was speaking of (2) sets of laws. A set that guided him, thus knowing what sin was:

Rom. 7:[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

And the law that was added and remained unitl the seed (Christ) should come.

Do me a favor....try reading some of Pauls writings assuming that Paul is talking about (2) different sets of laws.

 

[Drew]

Here are just a few:

Josh. 24 [2] And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. IDOLATRY BEFORE MOSES!

The fact that Joshua notes that the people served other Gods does not mean they were breaking a law.

Exod. 20 [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The 10 commandments are part of the Torah, they are not a law that precedes Torah.

Gen. 4 [7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
[8] And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. MURDER BEFORE MOSES!

Again, the fact that there was murder does not mean there was a law. Suppose a new country is formed and before they have a chance to make a law against murder, someone goes out and commits murder. There was a murder, but there was no law.

Exod. 20 [13] Thou shalt not kill.

Again, part of Torah.

Gen. 12 [13] Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
[[17] And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
[18] And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
[19] Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. LYING BEFORE MOSES!

Same thing as above. The point is that there can exist sinful behaviour in the absence of law. Law exposes sin, but sin exists independent of law, Paul is crystal clear on this in Romans 5:12-14.

I believe the same comments apply to the rest of your post. Sin exists, is real, and has consequences in the absence of Law.

I see no evidence that the Jews were under any formal law until the Torah was given.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Gen. 4 [7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

What was the SIN that lieth at the door if there was no law? That is Gods definition of SIN...breaking His LAWS!

And what about the SIN the angels commited? Again, breaking Gods laws in SIN.

"The point is that there can exist sinful behaviour in the absence of law. Law exposes sin, but sin exists independent of law, Paul is crystal clear on this in Romans 5:12-14."

Paul is saying just the opposite, the problem is that most think Paul is only dealing with (1) law.

Let's try this:

Fact 1: There is only (1) definition of sin in the bible, Gods definition, found in several places, here are two:

Lev.5
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

and,

I John 3
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

As stated before, a person that SINS, is BREAKING GODS LAWS. Again, this is according to scripture. If this is wrong, please direct me to the scripture that says this statement is not true; Book, chap. and verse.

Fact 2: All have sinned:

Eccl 7[20]
For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

And again,

In Rom 3:23 it states, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Again, if I am wrong on this, please present Book, Chap. and verse that says so.

Now, if to sin is to break Gods laws and ALL have sinned, there MUST be LAWS still in place? For where there is no law saying what sin is how is one to know they have sinned?

Would God leave it up to MAN to determine what sin is? NO! As a matter of fact He did not. He left us with His definition so that someone can not come around saying, going to the movies is a sin. Or, having a glass of wine is sin.

That is how Paul knew what sin was:

Rom. 7:[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


And in reply to what you said about a murder being commited before a law was made, this is what the scriptures says:

Rom.2
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

So even though non-Israelites were not given the law, and yet they do those thigs contained in the law, though they were not given it, their actions becomes a law. Let's read more:

[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

So there will be those that will perish, not receiving the knowledge of the law. Now why is that? Because of the verse 14 above. Now who is it that will be judged and by what are they judged? Sinners will be judged by THE LAW!!!

Truly, "For there is no respect of persons with God." Rom.2:11 Those that received the law will be judged by it and those that did not.

So i guess that is why I'm having a problem with understanding why you say God retired His laws.

Again, concerning the (2) facts I presented, if I am wrong about Gods definintion of sin and the fact that we all have sinned and have broken Gods laws, prove it. But please do so using the scriptures. That's what they are to be used for:

2 Tim.3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Rick W]

Even without "The Law" people lived by their own law, law onto themselves.
I don't have the verse in which Paul refered to this but I'll get when I get home.
They weren't "lawless" in the first place. No society can survive anarchy where there is no law what-so-ever.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Rom.2
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[DM]

I agree with Drew's understanding that Galatians 3:19 use of the words "because of transgressions" must be understood as synonymous with "to produce, transgressions". The only way sin can be "counted", is if there is a counter . . . a set of rules to be violated. Consequently, when God forgives men their sins, their sins are not "counted" against them.

Where I draw a different conclusion from you, however, is the idea that sins amount exclusively to "breaking the Law". We tend to view Adam's sin as "breaking a command" (i.e. breaking a law, as it were). However, the real sin for Adam was not that he broke a command, per se. The real sin, I would suggest, was his unbelief in the word of God. Which is simply to say, that he did not believe God. This unbelief is ultimately what counts for unrighteousness, just as Abram's belief counted for righteousness (cf. Gen. 15:6 / Gal. 3:6 / Romans 4:3,9 / James 2:23).

Orthodox Christianity, unknowingly perhaps, makes God the penultimate legalist, whose demand of payment for sins actually precludes forgiveness entirely. To "forgive", is to cancel an unpaid debt. If a debt is paid, then consequently, it cannot be "forgiven".

Why the death of Jesus then? Was it so God could forgive where He otherwise could not? No. Jesus did not have to die in order for God to forgive sinners of their sins; rather, Jesus died so that men could be justified by faith in God's promises, including his promise of forgiveness. Which is to say, that it is not the wrath of God that is appeased in Jesus' death, but rather, it is the wrath of the Law itself. God doesn't demand payment for sins . . . the Law does.

Peace in Him.
David

 

[Eccl12and13]

Even without "The Law" people lived by their own law, law onto themselves.
I don't have the verse in which Paul refered to this but I'll get when I get home.
They weren't "lawless" in the first place. No society can survive anarchy where there is no law what-so-ever.

Which is purpose of this post. Most think that God nailed ALL of His laws to the cross, which just can not be the case. Just as you mentioned, 'No society can survive anarchy where there is no law what-so-ever."

Before man was even created God had laws:

2 Peter 2 [4] For if God spared not the angels that sinned,

So why would He just toss all of His commandments, statues and laws when Christ died?

 

[Eccl12and13]

First and foremost there is one thing that must be understood before going on. If you do not agree with this, then we are not on the same page at all. As a matter of fact, we are reading (2) different books.

Who makes the rules? Who is the master? Who should we follow? Now to the best of my knowledge there is only one answer to that; GOD!!!!

God alone established everything. God said what’s an abomination. God said what is clean and unclean. God determined what is Holy and what is not. God told us what sin is. And God only gave us His laws. Man did not have any say in anything.

Your reply was;

“Where I draw a different conclusion from you, however, is the idea that sins amount exclusively to "breaking the Law".

First I must ask this; Should I listen to, “Where I†or should I listen to Gods word? I’m going with Gods word. This is what Gods word says sin is;

1John.3
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So yes, unless God gives us another definition for sin within the bible, what else are we to think? Sin amounts exclusively to breaking Gods Law.

Now are we to go to another source outside of the word of God for a definition of sin? Man can always come up with their view of what they think sin should be, but can you imagine the outcome of that? Drinking: a sin. Dancing: a sin. Going to the movies: a sin. Listening to music: a sin. I am thankful God gave us His definition so that I have a guide as to what sin is.

Next you said;

“We tend to view Adam's sin as "breaking a command" (i.e. breaking a law, as it were).â€Â

Well let’s go back to the source to see what was said;

Gen. 2
[16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
[17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God’s command was, “Thou shalt not eat of it…â€Â. Now let’s see if Adam ‘broke Gods commandâ€Â.



Gen. 3
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam did break Gods command; not to eat of the tree. Should I tend to think of this as anything else but breaking Gods commandment?

Your next comment was;

“Jesus did not have to die in order for God to forgive sinners of their sins;…rather, Jesus died so that men could be justified by faith in God's promises, including his promise of forgiveness.â€Â

Jesus did have to die to forgive sins. Otherwise, we would be dying for our own sins. Why? Because the one that made the Law said so. Let’s read:

Ezek.18
[4] Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die

Rom.6
[23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb.9
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Once again, you nor I made these laws. God made them and for whatever reason He said there must be the shedding of blood for the remission of sin. That was a Law He made, not us. Do I get it…NO! But that is what is written in the book so guess what? Since He is the master and I the servant, I gotta roll with it.

Adam and Eve could have easily made skirts from the foliage in the garden, but what did God cover them with?

Gen.3
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

From the very start there had to be the shedding of blood to forgive sins. That is….until Jesus died for us.

For until Jesus blood was shed, we had to kill bulls and goats….the shadow of things to come.

Heb. 9
[12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And finally you said;

“Which is to say, that it is not the wrath of God that is appeased in Jesus' death, but rather, it is the wrath of the Law itself. God doesn't demand payment for sins . . . the Law does.â€Â

You make it sound as though the “Law†is an entity iself. The “Law†is from God. It does not stand alone. God made the Law and His Law says that the payment for sin is the shedding of blood.

Sorry for the long reply.