What was the Law that was ADDED?

[Drew]

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

I do not think that you have made a sound case that sin is only defined in terms of lawbreaking. Sure, John says "sin is lawlessness", but this does not imply that it is only lawlessness. We know from Paul that sin is real and powerful even in the total absence of law:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Paul says that sin is not "imputed" in the absence of Law, but he is quite clear that sin exists independent of law. You appear to not ascribe to this view. Am I right?

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.

This is demonstrably not true. We have Romans 5:12-14 telling us that sin was in the world before the Law (the Torah). Now I know that your argument is "therefore there must have been another law before Torah since sin is 'breaking the law'.

But Paul clearly rules this possibility out when he says this:

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.

This really does seem to settle the matter to me. Paul is clear that death - which we know for Paul is the result of sin (Romans 6:23) - had dominion even over those who did not break a command, any command.

There is no doubt - Paul believes that sin exists and can occur even in the total absence of law.

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?

This is not correct. Sin is only exposed or brought to light by law. There is no reason why sin cannot exist independently of law. And Paul makes the claim that sin does indeed exist independent of law.

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:

You misunderstand who this verse is referring to. It is referring to Gentile Christians, none of whom existed before the Torah was given. So my point remains - murder existed before Torah (or any law). I can prove this verse is referring to Gentile Christians if you like.

 

[francisdesales]

There is no doubt - Paul believes that sin exists and can occur even in the total absence of law.

Just to clarify - I'm pretty sure you'd agree - I'd like to include a word to your quote...

There is no doubt - Paul believes that sin exists and can occur even in the total absence of a WRITTEN law.

As Rick points out, there always was a "law" written on the hearts of men - and obedience to THAT law serves as a law onto itself that makes people spiritual Jews. Romans 2...

Differentiating between the written Mosaic Law and the "law written on their hearts" helps to figure out what Paul is talking about and why he can on the one hand say the Mosaic Law is abrogated WHILE saying we must continue to obey a law.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Be it the written Law or the law of the conscience, man is nonetheless in the need of a Saviour, for all have sinned. It is a fantasy to think a "people of goodwill" exists without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in the individual.
Grace, Bubba

 

[Drew]

As Rick points out, there always was a "law" written on the hearts of men - and obedience to THAT law serves as a law onto itself that makes people spiritual Jews. Romans 2...
Differentiating between the written Mosaic Law and the "law written on their hearts" helps to figure out what Paul is talking about and why he can on the one hand say the Mosaic Law is abrogated WHILE saying we must continue to obey a law.

We disagree on who Paul is talking about in Romans 2. It seems that you see the law written on the heart as being something general to all human beings. I claim that the law is only written on the hearts of believers. I will not defend the point in this post - it is a little complicated. I hope to do so later.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew wrote
I do not think that you have made a sound case that sin is only defined in terms of lawbreaking. Sure, John says "sin is lawlessness", but this does not imply that it is only lawlessness. We know from Paul that sin is real and powerful even in the total absence of law:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.[quote:3272w9en]

[/quote:3272w9en]

Do me one favor, just for a moment, let's assume Paul is talking about (2) different laws. Now let's read the following verse based on the assumption that the law that was added is one of the (2) laws:
Rom. 5
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Now let's read it with the subs:

For until the (law that was added) came, there was still the breaking of Gods laws: but the breaking of Gods laws still occur even after the (law that was added) is gone.

Now I know some that are reading this may think this is a bit much to try to imply, but is it? It makes more sense than saying that sin (the breaking of the law) can exist without a law!

How can Paul mean that sin is real and powerful and exsist, in the total absence of law?

Once again, people fail to realize that Paul's writtings are hard to understand. Think about what Peter said:

2 Peter 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.

Now if Peter, a person that spoke the same language as Paul, thought his writtings were hard, how are we, 2000 years later, supposed to just pick up Pauls writtings and understand them with no problems?

As far as the breaking of the law being the only definition of sin, please provide me with another from the bible so that I can compare. Like I said before, God, the master, the creator is the one that gave us the definition of sin, Not Paul! Paul GOT his definition of sin from God:

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 tell me....is there another definition of sin in the bible we can use? Because if not then my case is quite sound!

 

[francisdesales]

As Rick points out, there always was a "law" written on the hearts of men - and obedience to THAT law serves as a law onto itself that makes people spiritual Jews. Romans 2...
Differentiating between the written Mosaic Law and the "law written on their hearts" helps to figure out what Paul is talking about and why he can on the one hand say the Mosaic Law is abrogated WHILE saying we must continue to obey a law.

We disagree on who Paul is talking about in Romans 2. It seems that you see the law written on the heart as being something general to all human beings. I claim that the law is only written on the hearts of believers. I will not defend the point in this post - it is a little complicated. I hope to do so later.

I will respect your decision to defend this later. I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Carry on.

Regards

 

[Rick W]

This doesn't have to be complicated. :ohwell

 

[Bubba]

We disagree on who Paul is talking about in Romans 2. It seems that you see the law written on the heart as being something general to all human beings. I claim that the law is only written on the hearts of believers. I will not defend the point in this post - it is a little complicated. I hope to do so later.

Drew,
Romans 2:14; "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,"

The way I understand this passage is that all people are without excuse, those with the written Law and those who instinctively know the difference between right and wrong. May be this is God's image impressed on man from the beginning.
Grace, Bubba

 

[Drew]

Do me one favor, just for a moment, let's assume Paul is talking about (2) different laws. Now let's read the following verse based on the assumption that the law that was added is one of the (2) laws:
Rom. 5
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Now let's read it with the subs:

For until the (law that was added) came, there was still the breaking of Gods laws: but the breaking of Gods laws still occur even after the (law that was added) is gone.

Now I know some that are reading this may think this is a bit much to try to imply, but is it? It makes more sense than saying that sin (the breaking of the law) can exist without a law!

I suspect that you know that I will point out that your reasoning here is essentially circular. You have reworded what Paul actually wrote when you derived this "sub":

For until the (law that was added) came, there was still the breaking of Gods laws:

This is not what Paul says - in none of the translations that I have looked at is there anything remotely close to this statement "there was still breaking of God's law".

To be frank, one can make almost any case if one engages in such revisionism.

How can Paul mean that sin is real and powerful and exsist, in the total absence of law?

Again, you seem attached to this idea that sin is only law-breaking. What Paul says rules this out.

As far as the breaking of the law being the only definition of sin, please provide me with another from the bible so that I can compare.

I already have - Romans 5:12-14. I have already argued that this shows that Paul believes sin exists in the absence of any law.

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.

I am not sure how this text supports your case. Paul is talking about the Torah here. As I have been arguing, Torah exposes and reveals sin, sin still exists without Torah.

So tell me....is there another definition of sin in the bible we can use?

Romans 5:12-14 may not specifically define sin, but it clearly shows that sin is real and existent in the absence of law. And that seems to be what is at issue.

By the way, I am not sure I understand what your ultimate point is. Let's assume that I agreed with you that Torah was "added" to another law (I do not agree with this, in fact, but I will suspend my view for the sake of the argument). Why is this important to know?

 

[Drew]

Romans 2:14; "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,"

The way I understand this passage is that all people are without excuse, those with the written Law and those who instinctively know the difference between right and wrong. May be this is God's image impressed on man from the beginning.
Grace, Bubba

If I agreed that "instinctively" is the correct way to translate the Greek word "Fiseiv" (or however that is spelled), I would agree with you. But I think the more correct rendering is "by birth" not "instinctively". So, as I plan to argue in detail later, I think the correct rendering of 2:14 is something like this:

"For when the Gentiles, who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law,....."

Such a rendering is consistent with my claim that Paul is only talking about believers having the Law written on their heart. I hope to post the argument in the next day or so....

 

[RND]

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

Drew, Messianics see the Torah as the entire Pentateuch. I think you might be referring to the Mosaic" law.

 

[RND]

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.

Rick, the promises to Abraham were by faith not law (covenant). See Romans 4. His faith was counted for righteousness.

 

[Drew]

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

Drew, Messianics see the Torah as the entire Pentateuch. I think you might be referring to the Mosaic" law.

I may have been less than precise on this. I think that by "Law", Paul refers to any and all laws, rules, ceremonies, practices, etc. that God has given to the Jews.

 

[Eccl12and13]

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

Drew, Messianics see the Torah as the entire Pentateuch. I think you might be referring to the Mosaic" law.

I was going to ask something along that same line. Is the Torah, considered by some, to be (1) set of 613 laws? Because within the 613 there are; Moral laws, Ceremonial laws, Dietary laws, Feast laws, Offering laws...etc. And all of these laws were not given at the same time.

If I am wrong please correct.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Do me one favor, just for a moment, let's assume Paul is talking about (2) different laws. Now let's read the following verse based on the assumption that the law that was added is one of the (2) laws:
Rom. 5
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Now let's read it with the subs:

For until the (law that was added) came, there was still the breaking of Gods laws: but the breaking of Gods laws still occur even after the (law that was added) is gone.

Now I know some that are reading this may think this is a bit much to try to imply, but is it? It makes more sense than saying that sin (the breaking of the law) can exist without a law!

I suspect that you know that I will point out that your reasoning here is essentially circular. You have reworded what Paul actually wrote when you derived this "sub":

For until the (law that was added) came, there was still the breaking of Gods laws:

This is not what Paul says - in none of the translations that I have looked at is there anything remotely close to this statement "there was still breaking of God's law".

To be frank, one can make almost any case if one engages in such revisionism.

How can Paul mean that sin is real and powerful and exsist, in the total absence of law?

Again, you seem attached to this idea that sin is only law-breaking. What Paul says rules this out.

As far as the breaking of the law being the only definition of sin, please provide me with another from the bible so that I can compare.

I already have - Romans 5:12-14. I have already argued that this shows that Paul believes sin exists in the absence of any law.

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.

I am not sure how this text supports your case. Paul is talking about the Torah here. As I have been arguing, Torah exposes and reveals sin, sin still exists without Torah.

So tell me....is there another definition of sin in the bible we can use?

Romans 5:12-14 may not specifically define sin, but it clearly shows that sin is real and existent in the absence of law. And that seems to be what is at issue.

By the way, I am not sure I understand what your ultimate point is. Let's assume that I agreed with you that Torah was "added" to another law (I do not agree with this, in fact, but I will suspend my view for the sake of the argument). Why is this important to know?

I'll post a lesson on it later. Thanks for all of the replys.

 

[RND]

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

Drew, Messianics see the Torah as the entire Pentateuch. I think you might be referring to the Mosaic" law.

I was going to ask something along that same line. Is the Torah, considered by some, to be (1) set of 613 laws? Because within the 613 there are; Moral laws, Ceremonial laws, Dietary laws, Feast laws, Offering laws...etc. And all of these laws were not given at the same time.

If I am wrong please correct.

Jews and Messianics see the entire Hebrew Bible as Torah (teaching). However the whole mitzvot (law) is contained in the Mosaic law. Since the Jews and Messianics see such a distinction in the Bible I see no reason why Christians should see it differently. If it ain't broke.....

 

[RND]

I may have been less than precise on this. I think that by "Law", Paul refers to any and all laws, rules, ceremonies, practices, etc. that God has given to the Jews.

I may be picky sometimes! The "Torah" is the Pentateuch, the Pslams are the Pslams, the Prophets are the Tanakh and the Mitzvot is the written law of Moses (the 613).

 

[DM]

Hi eccl.

No need for saying, "we are reading (2) different books". I'm quite sure we're both referring to the Bible.

You are correct that "God makes the rules". It's also correct that God bends those rules whenever He sees fit, to conform them to His will (cf. 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 and Acts 10:13-15).

As for my saying that "I draw a different conclusion", you are responding to that by essentailly saying you shouldn't listen to me at all, but rather, the word of God. In fact, you are interpreting Scripture as you see fit. I am doing the same thing you're doing . . . just coming to other conclusions.

Drew's numerous points are valid on sin being defined beyond just "breaking laws", and you have yet to refute that.

As for Adam's "sin", yes, you should think of it beyond just breaking a command. My point was that Abram was considered "righteous" by God (cf. Gen. 15:6). Was he considered righteous by observing a law (or Law)? Or, was he declared "righteous" by his faith? The verse says, "Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." On the other hand, it's clear that the reason Adam "sinned" by "breaking a command" was rooted in the fact that Adam did not believe in the LORD. Which is to say, Adam did not believe God's words, whereas Abram did.

As for death for sins, we DO die for our sins. That is precisely why we die, because "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). But when we put our faith in God's promise of forgiveness, we see in Jesus' death on our behalf, the guarantee of God's faithfulness to forgive our sins.

As for the idea you draw from Hebrews 9 that blood is demanded for payment in order for forgiveness to occur, you must consider that verse 22 specifically says that this is true, "according to the Law". Outside of the Law, that is, when the Law is cancelled, being the curse that it was, "there is no transgression" (cf. Romans 4:15).

Romans 4:15 is quintessential to understanding this idea.

Peace in Him.
David

 

[Eccl12and13]

DM you said:
"You are correct that "God makes the rules". It's also correct that God bends those rules whenever He sees fit, to conform them to His will (cf. 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 and Acts 10:13-15)."

I can't find the bending of any rules with the scriptures you presented. God does not change:

Heb. 13:[8] Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

But He does forgive, which is what He did in 2 Chron. The verse says that God 'pardon' everyone. Which means they still were unclean for the feast, which was a sin (breaking His law), but He forgave them. Something He does with all of us when we sin (break His laws).

2 Chron. 30
[18] For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one

And in Acts 10;
[13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
[14] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
[15] And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

There was no bending of any of Gods laws. What was happening here was a vision, a dream, that Peter was having. God was letting Peter know, through a dream, that the Gentiles whould also be given the word of God, as is indicated further down in the chapter;

[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
[47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts.11
[1] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

What should be noted, that most miss, is that Peter was still keeping Gods dietary laws.

Next you said;
"As for my saying that "I draw a different conclusion", you are responding to that by essentailly saying you shouldn't listen to me at all, but rather, the word of God. In fact, you are interpreting Scripture as you see fit."

If you are talking about sin exclusivley meaning breaking Gods laws then you are correct. The only definition we have for sin is what is given to us in the scriptures, which is this:

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

Why should I go with anything other than what is in the bible? I have asked this before, can you find me another definition of sin within the bible? How is this interpreting scriptures as I see fit?

Next you said:
"As for Adam's "sin", yes, you should think of it beyond just breaking a command."
Why? The only point I was making is that Adam sinned. He broke Gods law
God said; "Gen.2 [17] "...thou shalt not eat of it.."

And Adam;Gen.3 [17] "...hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:..."

So Adam broke a commandment of God. My point was not that Adam or anybody else was righteous, only that Adam sinned; he broke Gods commandment.

Next you said:
"As for death for sins, we DO die for our sins. That is precisely why we die, because "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)."

And again, what is Gods definition of sin, the only one we have, that is until you find me another:

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

So really what Paul is saying is that the wages for transgressing Gods laws is death.

Now I ask you, is that my interpretation? Sin is transgressing Gods laws and Paul said the wages of sin is death. Did I add or take away anything from the scriptures? If so, please let me know where.

It is interesting, if you go into the next chapter Paul states the following:
Rom.7
[1] Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Now here is a question for you DM: Just what law is Paul talking about here? The one that has dominion over a man until his death. Now remember your answer as I go to the last part of your post.

Finally you said:
"As for the idea you draw from Hebrews 9 that blood is demanded for payment in order for forgiveness to occur, you must consider that verse 22 specifically says that this is true, "according to the Law". Outside of the Law, that is, when the Law is cancelled, being the curse that it was, "there is no transgression"

Now above when you say, "Outside of the Law, that is, when the Law is cancelled..." Just what law is it that was cancelled?

Because Paul, in Rom. 7:1, tells us that there is a law that has dominion over man until his death.

I am very interested and patiently waiting for your reply.

 

[DM]

Hi eccl.

The only "law" Christians need adhere to is the "law of Chirst", which is to say the law of love, also known as a "law of liberty". (cf. 1 Gal. 6:2 / Cor. 9:21 / Romans 3:27 / James 1:25; 2:12).

Christ died to set us free from any law:

"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1).

The Law of Moses (which is synonymous with the "Law of God"), is a "yoke of slavery".

"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." (Romans 7:4)

"But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6)

Consequently, "apart from Law, sin is dead," (Romans 7:8b)

The whole point to this is that "sin" is something beyond just breaking laws. True sin, is simply unbelief, which leads to "transgressions of the Law". God, in His wisdom and mercy, cancelled the Law altogether so that we would no longer be lead by coersion of fear, but rather, motiviation of love:

"When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13,14)

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." (1 John 4:18)

God wants us to grow in our love. The only way that can happen is without the "fear" that is produced by "law". God has therefore terminated the Law of Moses (which only ever applied to Jews, and Jewish converts), in order to "free" us from any fear. We can now grow and learn, make mistakes, and yes, "sin", but all the while with God's love guiding us an prompting us forward without any fear. Rather than having our "sins" now weigh us down with guilt and fear, we can see them for what they are . . . "missing the mark" to which we are called. We can now more effectively than ever "conquer sin", because the "power" of sin which was wrought in the Law, has been taken out of the way.

Death is now merely a "sting" which we must all experience because of our sins, but it is by no means the final end for us.

Grace and Peace,
David