When did the 10 Commandments Begin

[PROPHECYKID]

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

Paul makes it clear, sin may be present but it will not imputed to man when there is no law.

Do you interpret this verse to mean God did not hold anyone accountable for their sin before the law was given to Moses?

 

[DamianWarS]

If Eve killed Adam before the fall, or vice versa, I think it would have to be unintentional, and therefore not sin. Like a toddler playing with matches. I don't think we are created in the same way as Lucifer that sin could just be 'found' in us before that ball started rolling...otherwise why the Tree of Knowledge, if it wasn't needed for testing?

I'm speaking of murder. Perhaps they didn't have the capacity to do such acts but it doesn't make murder not a sin pre-fall because no one said it was so.

 

[Guojing]

Do you interpret this verse to mean God did not hold anyone accountable for their sin before the law was given to Moses?

How might you interpret this verse then? I know Abraham married his half sister, and withhold saying that Sarah was his wife twice.

There was no record of God ever punishing him for those deeds.

 

[mreeed]

I'm speaking of murder. Perhaps they didn't have the capacity to do such acts but it doesn't make murder not a sin pre-fall because no one said it was so.

I would agree. Even if Adam and Eve didn't have the capacity to murder (as an example), I imagine the serpent did, and that would have been a sin. I'm sure the serpent might have rather murdered Adam and Eve than merely tempt them to sin. After all he comes to steal, kill and destroy, other sins seem to be just means to this end, similar to how (conversely) the 10 Commandments and others hang on the greatest two. But I'm sure God had strict (the strictest ever?) limits on what Satan was allowed to do to them. Law (if we are to call it that) so holy even just the capacity to disobey was prohibited.

Note that the serpent did not necessarily strictly transgress God's commandment - that is, the Bible doesn't say whether the serpent actually ate of that fruit himself. (He is a liar and the father of lies after all, in what he said about its results.) Plus we only know of the commandment being given to Adam; it might have been moot in regards to the serpent.

Perhaps the serpent already had the knowledge of good and evil due to his pre-fallen position or simply being created in the spiritual realm. Or perhaps in his seared conscience he initially thought what he was doing was arguably legalistically ok (probably not though, this seems too 'human'). Or perhaps his own 'eating of the tree' at a time not yet commanded against, was related in some way to sin being found in him (Ez 28:15), leading to the giving of the commandment to Adam and Eve.

 

[mreeed]

I wonder if Romans 5:13 and the imputation of sin refers to consequences of sin beyond our earthly/physical life. As it's hard to otherwise understand how Noah's flood is not an imputation of sin for the whole world at that time. (It could be argued that this included Noah and his family; while Noah was blameless in his generation, nobody is without sin. Noah did find grace, but I don't imagine life in the ark was without suffering, ie sin consequences, either.) Could this also make some sense of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison in I Peter 2:18-20?

 

[DamianWarS]

Note that the serpent did not necessarily strictly transgress God's commandment - that is, the Bible doesn't say whether the serpent actually ate of that fruit himself. (He is a liar and the father of lies after all, in what he said about its results.) Plus we only know of the commandment being given to Adam; it might have been moot in regards to the serpent.

Perhaps the serpent already had the knowledge of good and evil due to his pre-fallen position or simply being created in the spiritual realm. Or perhaps in his seared conscience he initially thought what he was doing was arguably legalistically ok (probably not though, this seems too 'human'). Or perhaps his own 'eating of the tree' at a time not yet commanded against, was related in some way to sin being found in him (Ez 28:15), leading to the giving of the commandment to Adam and Eve.

the bible is not written for the serpents. you will have to consult their scripture to see what instruction God gave them and if they violated it. I suspect however this information is out of our reach (if there is such a thing) and we should stick to what's given to us.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

How might you interpret this verse then? I know Abraham married his half sister, and withhold saying that Sarah was his wife twice.

There was no record of God ever punishing him for those deeds.

I can't remember if Abraham did have to answer for lying but we have numerous examples of people getting wiped out due to sin. The peoplle in Noah's day? The people of Sodom and Gomorrah? They were not held accountable and punished because of their sins?

 

[Guojing]

I can't remember if Abraham did have to answer for lying but we have numerous examples of people getting wiped out due to sin. The peoplle in Noah's day? The people of Sodom and Gomorrah? They were not held accountable and punished because of their sins?

Okay, since Paul stated repeatedly that we are linked to Abraham in this grace covenant, its clear that God will never impute sin on us since as believers, we are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Okay, since Paul stated repeatedly that we are linked to Abraham in this grace covenant, its clear that God will never impute sin on us since as believers, we are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Well Paul never said that, he said all who is in Christ is Abraham's seed and will share in the promise made to Abraham.

Let me ask you a question. How does Grace even exist without sin? The text we have looked at many times here said that the law entered that the offense (sin) might abound, but where sin abounded, Grace did much more abound. So if you remove law, you remove the offense and then what is the point of Grace?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Okay, since Paul stated repeatedly that we are linked to Abraham in this grace covenant, its clear that God will never impute sin on us since as believers, we are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Sin is the transgression of the law. You are still under the law (but not its curse) but now you have grace when you do break it...

 

[Guojing]

Well Paul never said that, he said all who is in Christ is Abraham's seed and will share in the promise made to Abraham.

Let me ask you a question. How does Grace even exist without sin? The text we have looked at many times here said that the law entered that the offense (sin) might abound, but where sin abounded, Grace did much more abound. So if you remove law, you remove the offense and then what is the point of Grace?

Romans 5:13
Romans 6:14

I trust you can read what these 2 verses are saying.

 

[Guojing]

Sin is the transgression of the law. You are still under the law (but not its curse) but now you have grace when you do break it...

Galatians 3:23-25 disagrees with you.

 

[mreeed]

the bible is not written for the serpents. you will have to consult their scripture to see what instruction God gave them and if they violated it. I suspect however this information is out of our reach (if there is such a thing) and we should stick to what's given to us.

I'm not trying to reach beyond; I've never actually thought of this before, it was responding to your post that somehow stirred this thinking process for me. What I meant to show is principles in support of the principle of the law existing prior and in the time of Adam and Eve (which I believe we agree on) based on God's eternal and unchanging nature.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Galatians 3:23-25 disagrees with you.

No it doesn't. Do you disagree then that sin is the transgression of the law? He redeemed us from the curse of the law.

 

[Guojing]

No it doesn't. Do you disagree then that sin is the transgression of the law? He redeemed us from the curse of the law.

You stated that

You are still under the law (but not its curse)

24 So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Not clear enough for you?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Romans 5:13
Romans 6:14

I trust you can read what these 2 verses are saying.

You cannot interpret a verse in a way that causes it to go against the plain reality which the scriptures also bear out. Weren't the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah wiped out because of their iniquity? And this was before Moses.

 

[Guojing]

You cannot interpret a verse in a way that causes it to go against the plain reality which the scriptures also bear out. Weren't the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah wiped out because of their iniquity? And this was before Moses.

I see, you don't want the plain literal meaning of verses to get in the way of what you already believe, alright then.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I see, you don't want the plain literal meaning of verses to get in the way of what you already believe, alright then.

Up to now you have not answered my question. Let me ask it again for the third time. When God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin, were they not being held accountable for their sin?

 

[Guojing]

Up to now you have not answered my question. Let me ask it again for the third time. When God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin, were they not being held accountable for their sin?

But we have Jesus's finished work on the cross, while they did not.

I thought that was already established in Romans and Galatians. Did you miss it?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You stated that



24 So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Not clear enough for you?

It is clear to me but not to you it seems. The key word is "justified"...