IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?
- Thread starter Dan Perez
- Start date
Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,096
- 6,100
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Hi Clare73,
Ok then, let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start
In Genesis 4 Cain's offering is rejected and Cain is dejected. God comes to talk to Cain and makes these comments which are antithetical to your premise that before Moses sin is merely "the imputation of Adam's guilt."
Genesis 4:7
"You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."
Now here's the interesting part. In my response to expos4ever and my interpretation of Romans 5:13 you suggested that I was implying that Paul got it wrong. expos4ever says that Romans 5:13 is "unambiguous" and that is not "possible to reconcile what Paul says in Romans 5 with the view that 'sin = lawlessness in the 10 commandment sense.'" But now we'll if you and expos4ever are willing to let Genesis 4:7 read in its normative sense or if you both--based on a predetermined outcome--are predisposed to reject the normative reading and do the thing you are accusing me of doing.
You claim that the only sin before Moses is "the imputation of Adam's guilt." If that's the case, then what in the world is God talking about here? How is it that He is concerned about Adam's guilt "crouching at the door, eager to control" Cain?
Not when you realize we've got apples and oranges here (and the apples aren't the oranges). . .
1) legal guilt by which one is condemned (Adam's sin imputed), and
2) operation of sinful nature inclining to sin (apart from Adam's guilt imputed).
Actually, the reader is told precisely what the problem was--lack of faith (Hebrews 11:4-5)
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.
Are there any covenantal laws carrying the death penalty in the Can and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
LoveGodsWord
Well-Known Member
- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
AMEN!Hi Clare73,
Ok then, let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start
In Genesis 4 Cain's offering is rejected and Cain is dejected. God comes to talk to Cain and makes these comments which are antithetical to your premise that before Moses sin is merely "the imputation of Adam's guilt."
Genesis 4:7
"You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."
Now here's the interesting part. In my response to expos4ever and my interpretation of Romans 5:13 you suggested that I was implying that Paul got it wrong. expos4ever says that Romans 5:13 is "unambiguous" and that is not "possible to reconcile what Paul says in Romans 5 with the view that 'sin = lawlessness in the 10 commandment sense.'" But now we'll if you and expos4ever are willing to let Genesis 4:7 read in its normative sense or if you both--based on a predetermined outcome--are predisposed to reject the normative reading and do the thing you are accusing me of doing.
You claim that the only sin before Moses is "the imputation of Adam's guilt." If that's the case, then what in the world is God talking about here? How is it that He is concerned about Adam's guilt "crouching at the door, eager to control" Cain? How in the world is Cain supposed to "subdue" what you identify as "the imputation of Adam's guilt"? How is Cain supposed to "master" this imposed guilt with which he had no part? And do you really want us to believe that God is suggesting "Adam's guilt" has anything to do with what God is insisting needs to be overcome? Or rather, is not this part of the narrative God's attempt to redirect Cain away from his desire to murder his brother?
This entire narrative is hard on your expressed paradigm. There are no preliminaries supplied to the narrative of Cain's and Abel's offerings. We are not told about the sacrificial system or the need to create an altar. Yet, BOoM, it just pops into the story and the reader is left to deduce certain facts from what is revealed. God indicates that doing "what is right" will lead to acceptance. If Cain doesn't do what is right then it results in sin. I'd say this is not some nebulous "imputation of Adam's guilt" but an actual transgression of the revealed will of God. Cain knew murdering his brother was a sin. God intervened and directed him to "DO what is right," implying that Cain knew the difference between right (not murdering) versus wrong (murdering).
I pray this helps.
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Great post! I have not really been following this thread for a while but good post on the origin of sin and law. Thanks for sharing. Sorry if it seems to be ignored by many here. I posted something similar that was also ignored showing sin and law in Genesis. Anyhow, I am sure it is appreciated by those who want to know what the scriptures teach on this topic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Icyspark
Active Member
AMEN!
Hi LoveGodsWord,
Bless you! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and encouragement.
Yes, I've been doing apologetics long enough to realize the person I'm addressing isn't always the person who will benefit most from what I write.
As an aside, does anyone else have difficulty with the constant ad switching? Tonight has been particularly bad in disrupting my attempts to type.
God bless!
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Upvote
0
LoveGodsWord
Well-Known Member
- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Hmm are we suppose to be seeing Ads on this forum? I do not see of have any when I come here. I think I have ad block software in my web browser to stop that though. I did not know what you were talking about for a moment to be honest. Well come to think of it looking at my browsers Ad blocker it has blocked close to 3k ads already so it must be working. I did not even know until you mentioned it
PS. I am using web browser extension "StopAll ads" by the way
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Icyspark
Active Member
Hi Clare73,
It appears that now that you're confronted with a text which contradicts your premise of "the imputation of Adam's guilt" as being the sole sin identification pre Moses that you're attempting to hedge your previously stated position. Cain wasn't confronted by God based on Adam's sin, but upon a sin which God was attempting to prevent (i.e. the sin of murdering his brother).
Your two options supplied above appear nonsensical in relation to your own stated position regarding Adam's sin. How can you appeal to the "operation of the sinful nature inclining to sin" even be an available option in your adherence to "the imputation of Adam's guilt" premise? What "sin" other than "Adam's guilt" is there for Cain to incline towards? From my understanding of your position you don't believe there is any "law" or God-given guidelines for His human creation to abide by which if not complied with would connote an act of sin. The story of Cain and Abel obviously doesn't correlate with your premise, thus you're having to add a secondary option to your original premise--an option which makes no sense. How can anyone pre Moses incline to sin, if there is nothing but Adam's sin to which one may incline?
Let's ponder for a moment what it is that your position is proposing. For almost 2,000 years God supposedly did not provide any guidance for His human creation regarding what He considered proper behavior. Things like murder, adultery, lying, theft, worshipping God alone, etc., all these were left unaddressed for millennia. But is that really the case? No. While we are not privy to the giving of these commands, we do see that somehow, some way, people before Moses knew that these things were sins against God.
No one is condemned based on having a sinful nature. It is only when our sinful nature (apples) is acted upon that sin (oranges) is accounted to anyone.
Really? Is God's interaction with Cain and His admonition that Cain "rule over" his desire to sin really restricted solely to his lack of faith in bringing the less than "better" offering which Abel brought? Or rather, is God attempting to preempt Cain's anger which was leading him to slay his brother? Which do you think God might be more concerned about? A) Bringing the better sacrifice. B) The problem of not bringing the "better" offering which was leading to the murder of his brother?
The very next verse after God's interaction with Cain says, "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let’s go out to the field.' While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him." This seems readily apparent as to the context and intent of God's conversation with Cain.
It appears to me that you are overlooking the scenario in question. I have to wonder why? It seems that in order to embrace the position you're advocating that you have to do as you are doing. You can't look at the story of Cain and Abel and read it in its normative sense and come to the conclusion that sin is merely the "imputation of Adam's guilt." God did not impose a death penalty for the murder of Abel, however He did punish Cain. This very fact indicates one of at least two possibilities: 1) God had no revealed position regarding murder and therefore He punished Cain for something which Cain had no idea was wrong. That would be an arbitrary punishment. 2) We are not provided all the details regarding where, when or how God revealed what is right and wrong, yet we can deduce that this information was available to Adam and his progeny based on God's condemnation of specific sinful actions only after they pop into the narrative.
I pray this helps.
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Icyspark
Active Member
Hi SkyWriting,
This is a rather odd contention. Paul is not indicating a replacement of "those commands," but rather he provides a summarizing statement. To summarize something is not the equivalent of replacing something.
Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Loving your neighbor doesn't replace any of the preceding commandments. Without those commandments we wouldn't know what qualifies as being loving to your neighbor. Love is not left to our individual inclination and ideation. Jesus says love is revealed by obedience (e.g. John 14:15; John 15:10; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 5:3).
This is a common misunderstanding of the word covenant. Many people conflate the word covenant with the law. The word covenant merely means an agreement between two or more parties or people. When people get married they enter into an agreement/covenant. What they agree to is to commit themselves to the other person.
With regard to the law, it is not the agreement/covenant. The law is what the two agreed upon. The law is what God set before the people and He and they both agreed that it should be observed. The people promised, “We will do everything the Lord has said” (e.g. Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3-7).
Could you provide the New Testament counterpart to the Jeremiah text you've supplied above and then tell me what reason the author of Hebrews gives for why a new agreement/covenant was necessary? In other words, was there a problem with what was agreed upon, or rather was there a different issue which predicated the necessity for a new agreement/covenant?
I pray this helps.
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,096
- 6,100
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.
Are there any covenantal laws carrying the death penalty in the Cain and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?
My paradigm is Romans 5:12-14, where the sin that condemns all mankind is the imputed guilt of Adam for violating the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17, which imputation of guilt to all mankind was not revealed until the NT (Romans 5:18).
God's issue with Cain in Genesis is not his eternal destiny, but his favor with God at the time, and is not relevant to Romans 5:12-14, regarding imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Icyspark
Active Member
Hi Clare73,
Your response doesn't address anything specifically from the Cain and Abel narrative. The application of your premise of "the imputation of Adam's guilt" doesn't explain Genesis 4:6, 7 but seems like an attempt to force an apple into an orange hole.
Genesis 4:6, 7
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
According to the above passage, doing what is right leads to acceptance. You haven't addressed that in your abstract appeal to Adam's guilt. Adam's sin isn't what is being addressed in these two verses. If Cain doesn't do what is right what is the result?Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
What you are doing is called eisegesis: "the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas." I'm surmising this is why you don't accept the main and plain meaning of what the text clearly says--it directly contradicts your currently held belief. At this point in the biblical narrative there is no provided explanation for determining what is right, yet rightness and wrongness are clearly part and parcel in determining what is or is not sin. Then too, I'm sure the fact that God indicates that sin is something that MUST be mastered does not compute in a lawless whirled view. Yet here we are. Your claim that the only sin before Moses was the "imputation of Adam's guilt" is shown to be error as passages such as this plainly reveal otherwise.
I pray this helps.
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Icyspark
Active Member
Hi Clare73,
I already harmonized Paul's statement in Romans 5:12-14 in the first post to which you responded to me on this thread. Paul acknowledges his reliance on the law to know what sin is. He says, "I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'" This correlates with John's definition of sin which says, "sin is the transgression of the law."
Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, 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 is a pattern of the one to come.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, 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 is a pattern of the one to come.
"All sinned"? That's an action, not a state of being. If "sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law" then how can ALL have sinned? The word "sinned" is an action oriented word. If "sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law" then the flood narrative falls apart. Noah is identified as being righteous
and blameless (Genesis 6:9) while almost the entire human race is identified as wicked and evil. Why would the Lord regret having made them if they were just the same as everyone from the time of Adam till Moses? That doesn't make any sense. Your position militates against these character descriptions. After all, if your belief is correct then there should be nothing upon which God could base these attributes of being either righteous or evil. But if you take a moment and harmonize all that is revealed in Genesis with what Paul and the other Bible authors say about sin then one can easily ascertain that Paul is not saying there was no law, but that the law was not yet codified in written form. Sin was in the world before the codified law, there is no doubt of that based on the Cain and Abel narrative as well as other stories in Genesis.When Jesus says, sin no more, He's not talking about a state of being.
When John says not to sin he's not talking about a state of being.
When Paul says, stop sinning, he's not talking about a state of being.
When Peter says, stop sinning, he's not talking about a state of being.
I pray this helps.
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,096
- 6,100
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't see it as "harmonizing," I see it as modifying and altering until it becomes something different.
For me, you will have to explain the Cain and Abel account in agreement with Paul, not in disagreement with Romans 5:12-14.
Upvote
0
Leaf473
Well-Known Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 8,167
- 2,197
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I think Romans 13:9 is best understood looking at two things that come just before and just after it:
The person who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the law.
I don't think this is saying Keep every commandment in the law while loving. It's saying that the person who loves has already kept them.
The person who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the law.
I don't think this is saying Keep every commandment in the law while loving. It's saying that the person who loves has already kept them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Romans 13:9 is referring to the Ten Commandments. And keeping the commandments of God IS love.
For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments. 1 John 5:3
Love is fulfilled when we keep the commandments, not break them. The Ten Commandments has always been about love and who God’s shows mercy to when we keep love Him and keep His commandments Exodus 20:6. It’s a consistent theme throughout scripture that we keep His commandments.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Leaf473
Well-Known Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 8,167
- 2,197
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Oh, well... It looks like we see Romans 13 differently.
I see this phrase:
"and whatever other commandments there are..."
Leviticus 27 These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.
Upvote
0
A command is not the same thing as a commandment. Paul is quoting from the Ten Commandments as clearly shown, which came in a unit of Ten. Exodus 20, Exodus 34:28 and love is fulfilled we keep the commandments of God.
Upvote
0
Leaf473
Well-Known Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 8,167
- 2,197
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, he quotes from the ten commandments and then goes on to say "and whatever other commandments there are..."
The book of Leviticus is the commandments that God gave to Israel at Sinai. I think there are other commandments, too.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
