What was the Law that was ADDED?

[RND]

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).

Expressed in the Law of Moses.

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".

If Christ died to "free" people from any law wouldn't that also include the "law" of love?

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:

Unbelief in what?

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.

So as a parent God has removed all boundaries for His children?

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.

What sins? No law no sin.

Maybe you should read this:

"Not Subject to the Law of God?"

 

[DM]

(Oops. That's not "1" Galatians. There's only one I know of)

 

[Eccl12and13]

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:

Hello DM:
Now this is what I'm talking about, Gods word says this, and ONLY this:

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

But you say: "Sin is something beyond just breaking laws."
You say: "True sin is simply unbelief, which leads to 'transgressions of the Law.'"

By the way, what sense does that second statment make? 'True sin is simply unbelief, which leads to 'transgressions of the Law'. Sin IS the transgression of the Law. You might as well have used this circular definition: True sin is simply unbelief, which leads to SIN. Doesn't make much sense does it. Well, I guess it will once you find me the 'other' definition of sin!

And you accuse me of misinterpreting the scriptures!

First of all, Can you find, anywhere in the bible, that sin is beyond just breaking laws?
Can you find, anywhere where God makes a differenace between 'sin' and what YOU call, 'true sin'?

And to piggyback on what RND said, If, as you say, "God, in His wisdom and mercy, cancelled the Law altogether", wouldn't that include Christs' 'Law of Love'?

So which will it be DM? Are ALL of Gods Laws done away with, because if so, where does the Law of love fit in.

Here is what God says love is:

1John.5
[2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2John.1
[6] And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Now let's read what did Jesus say would get you eternal life:

Matt. 19
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Now let's read some of the commandments Jesus was talking about.

[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Now here is yet another question for you DM: Who should I believe? The creator? The one who set forth the Laws? The one that will judge all of mankind?

Or should I take my chance on the writtings of Paul? Writtings that, at sometimes, tell me the 'Law was nailed to the cross'; Col.2:14. And other times tell me, 'the law is holy, just and good', Rom.7 12.

Again Peter warned us of Pauls writtings:

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.

I'm sure most that have ever read Pauls writtings can attest that they can be very hard to understand.

I noticed you had no reply nor answers for what I asked earlier:

1. Show me where God 'bends' His rules. There were no 'bending' of Gods Laws in the (2) examples you provided.

2. I'm still waiting on 'another' definition of sin, to be found between Gen. and Rev.

3. Just what law is Paul talking about here? 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?

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

Again, very interested and patiently waiting for your reply.

 

[Drew]

I believe that I hold a position similar to DM on the matter of the Law.

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this promise from the book of Jeremiah

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.â€Â

I see this text differently. I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts. I see it as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah is, I suggest, what Jesus is talking about in Matthew, when He says that all the Law and the Prophets "depend" on loving God and loving neighbour.

Lest ye think that this position is a pure "invention of convenience" on my part (e.g. to reconcile my position that Torah has been abolished with the clear implication of the above text that suggests otherwise), I will refer to at least a few things Paul says that countenance such a distinction:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For 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,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah that the Gentile does not possess - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Allthough things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

 

[francisdesales]

What sins? No law no sin.

Which law did the pagans have that placed THEM under sin, as well? (for you, Drew, as well)

What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; Romans 3:9

With RND's definition, how can pagans have sin if they have no law?

The definition is wrong...

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13.

Sin came into the world well before the Mosaic Law. Consider the conversation between Cain and God. Is God speaking as if Cain didn't know any better, had no "law"? Doesn't God make it clear that there IS sin in the world, even before God gave the Mosaic Law?

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 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. Gen 4:7

Clearly, these verses from Genesis and Romans state that sin came into the world before the Mosaic Law.


Regards

 

[Drew]

What sins? No law no sin.

Which law did the pagans have that placed THEM under sin, as well? (for you, Drew, as well)

I know that I still owe you a response re the law written on the heart in Romans 2. Hopefully soon.

I have never stated that I believe that there needs to be a law for there to be sin, so I think you mistakenly included me on this question.

Clearly, these verses from Genesis and Romans state that sin came into the world before the Mosaic Law.

I have been making this very argument all along in this thread - so I heartily agree.

 

[francisdesales]

Which law did the pagans have that placed THEM under sin, as well? (for you, Drew, as well)

I know that I still owe you a response re the law written on the heart in Romans 2. Hopefully soon.

I have never stated that I believe that there needs to be a law for there to be sin, so I think you mistakenly included me on this question.

There is a method to my apparent madness. The question is rhetorical - I say that there indeed WAS a law, written on everyone's hearts, even before the written Mosaic Law was given...

Which is why I drew your attention to it, Drew (sorry, I'm in a jovial mood, being Christmas and all!) I contend that man ALWAYS was bound by some sort of law by God - which later led to written codes of law, Mosaic, Hammurabi, etc...

Even unbelievers are bound by that law - although they refuse to follow it and are subject to condemnation as per Romans 1.

But more later.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Drew]

(sorry, I'm in a jovial mood, being Christmas and all!) I contend that man ALWAYS was bound by some sort of law by God - which later led to written codes of law, Mosaic, Hammurabi, etc...

How 'bout them Sabres!

And how can you be joival in Arizona at Christmas? At least we are up to our waists in snow....

Merry Christmas.

(I will get back to being argumentative after Christmas)

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew wrote:
I believe that I hold a position similar to DM on the matter of the Law.

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this promise from the book of Jeremiah

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.â€Â

I see this text differently. I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts. I see it as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah is, I suggest, what Jesus is talking about in Matthew, when He says that all the Law and the Prophets "depend" on loving God and loving neighbour.


I'm still waiting on a reply from DM. But feel free to answer them since, as you say, "I believe that I hold a position similar to DM on the matter of the Law."

I do have a few things of note about your reply. It's regarding a few of your quotes;

"I see this text differently." "I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts." "I see it as a promise ..." "I suggest..." "I suggest this strongly shows that Paul..."

Do you see a pattern here? There are quite a few "I's" flying around, where the scriptures clearly states the following:

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

And finally you end with:

"Note also how such an interpretation allows us ..."

How can someone not come up with such an interpretation? You have put your spin on it.



Something else to note. As stated in the title, 'What was the Law that was Added", from the start I have suggested that Paul was talking about (2) sets of Laws.

In the beginning of this thread you said there was only the Torah. Now, many replys afterward, I am hearing the following:

""true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference."

"this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law."

"One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws)."

"The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow."

"if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah..."

"The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour."

"Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Torah."

Now I must say Drew, in your statements above you indicate that Paul has (2) aspects to the Torah. Now just how far off are you from saying what I have suggested all along? (2) sets of Laws!!

You say:
"when there is in fact only one,"

But then you follow that statement with:
"but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah."

Now which one is it? Are there (2) aspects? Two faces? "One of these is the set of formal practices" and "The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow." Or is it a, "kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah."?



As always, I am very interested and patiently waiting for your reply.

 

[RND]

What sins? No law no sin.

Which law did the pagans have that placed THEM under sin, as well? (for you, Drew, as well)

What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; Romans 3:9

With RND's definition, how can pagans have sin if they have no law?

The definition is wrong...

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13.

Sin came into the world well before the Mosaic Law. Consider the conversation between Cain and God. Is God speaking as if Cain didn't know any better, had no "law"? Doesn't God make it clear that there IS sin in the world, even before God gave the Mosaic Law?

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 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. Gen 4:7

Clearly, these verses from Genesis and Romans state that sin came into the world before the Mosaic Law.


Regards

I was being sarcastic. But thanks for letting us know that sin came before the Mosaic law. I agree. The Mosaic law came because of transgression. So obviously, to me anyway, God has always had a standard of law.

 

[francisdesales]

How 'bout them Sabres!

Well, it's still early. They have some time to catch Boston!

And how can you be joival in Arizona at Christmas? At least we are up to our waists in snow....

Ah! Bingo! No snow!

It was 55 outside last night around our little bonfire on Christmas Eve. Beautiful!
I had a life time of snow already! It looks nice on TV, but I don't miss it!

Take care

 

[francisdesales]

I was being sarcastic.

Oh. I didn't know that.

But thanks for letting us know that sin came before the Mosaic law. I agree. The Mosaic law came because of transgression. So obviously, to me anyway, God has always had a standard of law.

Of course.

Regards

 

[Drew]

I do have a few things of note about your reply. It's regarding a few of your quotes;

"I see this text differently." "I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts." "I see it as a promise ..." "I suggest..." "I suggest this strongly shows that Paul..."

Do you see a pattern here? There are quite a few "I's" flying around, where the scriptures clearly states the following:

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

And finally you end with:

"Note also how such an interpretation allows us ..."

How can someone not come up with such an interpretation? You have put your spin on it.

This is not a legitimate critique, although one sees this kind of argument all the time. The point seems to be that because I am communicating what I believe the scriptures are saying that I am somehow distorting or putting a spin on the meaning intended by the writer.

The reality is, of course, that you {Eccl12and13) are in exactly the same position. You have presented us with a series of posts that express your understanding of what the scriptures are saying. So you are just as much engaged in acts of interpretation as I am. The fact that I happen to use a lot of expressions of the form “I think this†and “I think that†does not mean that I am spinning anything any more than you are.

Consider this statement of yours:

“Sin amounts exclusively to breaking Gods Law.â€Â

Now I have searched the scriptures and this statement appears in none of the 66 books. There may be statement that “sin is lawlessnessâ€Â. But this is not, as anyone who understands proper English, equivalent to the statement “sin is exclusively lawlessnessâ€Â.

Where did your statement come from? Your mind, obviously. And what does that mean? It mean that this is your thought, the way you see and understand things. Somebody other than an author of one of the books of the Bible came up with the above statement. And since that person is you, you have to admit that you are doing exactly the same thing I am doing – expressing your understanding of the Scriptures. And there is nothing unscriptural with that, I suggest.

As for the 2 Peter 1 text, consider the NIV and the YLT versions:

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

20this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition

The NIV rendering in no way suggests that we do not need to “interpret†– it states that the original writer was not engaging in interpretation when inspired to write that text. That is entirely a different matter – we, as readers, still need to interpret.

And the YLT version can be read the same way – asserting that the writer of the Scripture was not engaged in private interpretation but was rather under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.

But either way, we are all clearly in the same boat. Unless our posts contain simple transcripts of scripture, we are, of course, adding our own thoughts. Anything that does not come word for word from the Bible clearly embodies a contribution from the mind of the poster. And that is true of you as much as it is of me.

 

[Eccl12and13]

I do have a few things of note about your reply. It's regarding a few of your quotes;

"I see this text differently." "I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts." "I see it as a promise ..." "I suggest..." "I suggest this strongly shows that Paul..."

Do you see a pattern here? There are quite a few "I's" flying around, where the scriptures clearly states the following:

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

And finally you end with:

"Note also how such an interpretation allows us ..."

How can someone not come up with such an interpretation? You have put your spin on it.

This is not a legitimate critique, although one sees this kind of argument all the time. The point seems to be that because I am communicating what I believe the scriptures are saying that I am somehow distorting or putting a spin on the meaning intended by the writer.

The reality is, of course, that you {Eccl12and13) are in exactly the same position. You have presented us with a series of posts that express your understanding of what the scriptures are saying. So you are just as much engaged in acts of interpretation as I am. The fact that I happen to use a lot of expressions of the form “I think this†and “I think that†does not mean that I am spinning anything any more than you are.

Consider this statement of yours:

“Sin amounts exclusively to breaking Gods Law.â€Â

Now I have searched the scriptures and this statement appears in none of the 66 books. There may be statement that “sin is lawlessnessâ€Â. But this is not, as anyone who understands proper English, equivalent to the statement “sin is exclusively lawlessnessâ€Â.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you Drew.

The definition of sin is this:

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

So sin is the trangression of Gods' laws.

The definition of transgress is this:

Transgress
1. transitive verb break law: to break a law, rule, or moral code
transgress the law

So to transgress in to break a law.

Putting the (2) together gives us this:

Sin is breaking Gods laws.

Now here is the definition of exclusive:

Exclusive,
4. appearing in one place: published or broadcast in only one place
5. sole: being the only one

Now unless you can find ANOTHER defintion of sin within the 66 books of the bible, my statement is true; "Sin amounts exclusively to breaking Gods Laws."

So can you find another definition of sin in the bible Drew?

 

[Drew]

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you Drew.

Duuuhhhh, thanks.....

The definition of sin is this:

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

So sin is the trangression of Gods' laws.

I disagree on your interpretation of what sin is, but I am not interested in pursuing this any further. at least not for now. I do intend to make a post about Romans 2 and the law "written on the heart", though.

 

[Eccl12and13]

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you Drew.

Duuuhhhh, thanks.....

The definition of sin is this:

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

So sin is the trangression of Gods' laws.

I disagree on your interpretation of what sin is, but I am not interested in pursuing this any further. at least not for now. I do intend to make a post about Romans 2 and the law "written on the heart", though.

Drew:

So you disagree do you? Well give me another definition for sin. Prove me wrong?

And by the way, if you disagree with what is plain, simple scripture, what else do you 'disagree' with in the bible?

Please explain to me how, "Sin is the transgression of the law." is my interpretation of what sin is!

I didn't put it in the scriptures. That's what the bible says and the RCC approved it, so I had nothing to do with it. Throughout this whole thread I have asked for another definition of sin. I'm sure if there was, you would have made sure me and everyone else reading this thread know by now. But the problem is, you cannot. And since you can't your option is to stop the discussion.

I can see why you are not interested in pursuing it any further. Because if the only definition of sin given in the bible is the one in 1 John 3, then where does that leave your assumptions of the Law being retired?

It's impossible for all of the law to be retired because all have sinned and, as we all know, sin is the transgression of the law.

So now you want to divert attention to Rom. 2. That's fine. But if you do not agree with the scripture I presented for the definition of sin then prove to me and the rest of the readers of this thread that there is indeed another one.

Now at this point, I'm thinking you are not going to respond to this reply. And if you do, I know it will not be with the answer to, "where's the other definition for sin?".

So I guess I'll just wait on your Rom. 2 thread in the mean time.

 

[Drew]

But the problem is, you cannot. And since you can't your option is to stop the discussion.

It is unfortunate that you demonstrate this attitude. I told the truth - I am not pursuing this further for reasons of lack of interest, not because I believe the position I am defending is faulty.

Please do not make assumptions about the motives of other posters. I spend enough time on these boards as is. I have every right to disengage as I see fit.

 

[MarkT]

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 own destruction.†2 Peter 3

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

In context, Gal. 3:19, follows Paul's statement, that the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. So in saying the law was added, Paul is saying the law was added to the promises. Before the law came into effect, there was ignorance of the law. But then the people gained the knowledge of the law. In effect, the people had to follow the law now. They knew what it was. There was no excuse.

Now Paul said the law was added to the promises because of transgressions. Which means Abraham's offspring, the people of Israel, were sinners. But up until Moses they didn't have the law to convict them. All they had was a sense of good and evil. There were transgressions - like murder, violence, lying, stealing, etc. among the people.

Keep it in mind that Adam and Eve 'ate' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it is that all men have this sense of good and evil - though the wicked often take good for evil and evil for good - we all have this sense of good and evil. Remember the flood and the reason for it - the earth was corrupt and filled with violence.

And keep it in mind that Jesus said, 'not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished' Mt. 5:18. So the law wasn't abolished.

 

[RND]

In context, Gal. 3:19, follows Paul's statement, that the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. So in saying the law was added, Paul is saying the law was added to the promises. Before the law came into effect, there was ignorance of the law. But then the people gained the knowledge of the law. In effect, the people had to follow the law now. They knew what it was. There was no excuse.

Now Paul said the law was added to the promises because of transgressions. Which means Abraham's offspring, the people of Israel, were sinners. But up until Moses they didn't have the law to convict them. All they had was a sense of good and evil. There were transgressions - like murder, violence, lying, stealing, etc. among the people.

Keep it in mind that Adam and Eve 'ate' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it is that all men have this sense of good and evil - though the wicked often take good for evil and evil for good - we all have this sense of good and evil. Remember the flood and the reason for it - the earth was corrupt and filled with violence.

And keep it in mind that Jesus said, 'not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished' Mt. 5:18. So the law wasn't abolished.

Well stated.

 

[Drew]

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law†being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For 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,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law†is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law†on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively†in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…â€Â

…but instead this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fuseiâ€Â, which is often translated as “by nature†(although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctivelyâ€Â). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesians 2:3:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei†used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei†is rendered here as “physically†and as “instinctively†in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei†should be understood as having a “by birth†meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth†sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart†concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart†language to describe something hat will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely than not use “law written on the heart†language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.