Does the Law provoke sin?

[Elijah John]

Does the Law provoke sinful behavior? Is it's purpose only to demonstrate that we need a savior because the Law is supposedly impossible to keep?

How many laws existed in the Garden of Eden?

Was it the Law that provoked Cain to kill Abel?

Wasn't murder wrong even before the commandment forbiding it was given from Sinai?

[bluethread]

The problem with casting Paul's writings as in opposition to Torah is to ignore the complicated nature of the issues that Paul is addressing. This would put Paul in opposition to himself, because he also says, (Rom. 7:7) "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, 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.�" In isolation this verse makes little sense and appears to be contradictory. However, it must be noted that this is halfway through a midrash(treatise) on the nature of sin and it's relationship with HaTorah and salvation.

Paul says, (Rom.7:12 & 16) "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." "And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." In this Paul is saying is that in recognizing sin, one is acknowledging that there is a law and that law is correct. So, why does he say that (Rom. 3:20) "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."? Note that is earlier in the midrash(treatise), where he is noting our experiences. What is the therefore there for? It refers to accusations against Adonai's people by the Prophets listed in the previous verses. That is why he says to the Galatians, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified".

What are we to then to do with what Moshe' says about HaTorah? Paul addresses this later after he has established the principle that we do not actually keep Hatorah, even though we are capable. He notes, (Rom. 10:8) "But what saith it(HaTorah)? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach". His point is that it is not simply the keeping of HaTorah that brings salvation, but the keeping of HaTorah as an outgrowth of faith. Indeed, if we look at what he says to the Galatians in context, that is exactly what he is saying to them. Gal. 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua HaMeshiach, even we have believed in Yeshua HaMeshiach, that we might be justified by the faith of HaMeshiach, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." It is the faith OF Yeshua that justifies and that faith was made manifest in that He was the embodiment of HaTorah. As Paul tells the Colossians, (Col. 2:8-9) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after HaMeshiach. For in him dwells all the fullness of Elohiem bodily." In short, Paul was never in opposition to HaTorah, but was diametrically opposed to those who required the the keeping of HaTorah alone as a means of salvation. The keeping of HaTorah is what he is referring to when he concludes, (Rom.12:1) "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of Elohiem, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto Elohiem, which is your reasonable service." It is a thank offering, not a means of salvation. He then explains in the next three chapters how one is to incorporate HaTorah into one's life as such an offering.

[ttruscott]

The law existed prior to be given from Sinai. You can't transgress a law that doesn't exist, therefore the law existed prior to sin. ...

Ummm, consider:
what law did Satan and his angels break when they 'fell' into sin?

The law and commands are to convict sinners for their guilt, not to direct the lives of the innocent: Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Romans 7:13 Did that which is good [the law], then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Since there were no sinners before Satan's rebellion, he must have sinned without the law. Therefore he must have been innocent at the time he chose to sin by his free will. It is enough to reject the deity of YHWH and scorn HIS promises for salvation found in HIS Son to become an eternally evil person condemned to the outer darkness.

[shnarkle]

The law existed prior to be given from Sinai. You can't transgress a law that doesn't exist, therefore the law existed prior to sin. ...

Ummm, consider:
what law did Satan and his angels break when they 'fell' into sin?

It isn't exactly clear to me. Satan was charged to guard, but probably wanted to usurp God's position of authority. Violence was found within him.

The law and commands are to convict sinners for their guilt, not to direct the lives of the innocent: Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

It does sound strange for him to say that it merely brings awareness, but nonetheless without the law, there can be no sin so the law must exist prior to sin. The law is effectively synonymous with God's will.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Yep. Without the law, there's no way to know about sin, but then this still necessitates a law to begin with. There simply can't be sin without the law as sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 7:13 Did that which is good [the law], then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Again, there can be no such thing as sin without the law.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I should have looked at the greater contexts of the previous quotations, but this one from Galatians isn't dealing with the commandments, but the Greek "paidagogos" has nothing to do with instruction, and the previous verses point out that he is talking about the "curse" of the law rather than the obligation of the law. He's talking about the law that "was added because of transgressions" which as we all know one cannot transgress a law that doesn't exist. This law is added to that law to deal with transgressions, and when it is removed, the original law still exists.

Since there were no sinners before Satan's rebellion, he must have sinned without the law.

Non sequitur. One doesn't need to transgress God's law for God's law to exist. Again, there can be no sin without the law to begin with. It isn't possible to sin without a law to transgress. This isn't to say that what he did wasn't sin. It can't become sin after the fact.

Therefore he must have been innocent at the time he chose to sin by his free will.

When one chooses to transgress God's law, they are by definition sinning. The definition of sin is "transgession of the law". Again, one cannot transgress a law that doesn't exist in the first place. There can be no sin without the law, therefore the law had to exist prior to the law. Sometimes people assume that they could have done something that is considered sin prior to the law being created, but this is to pretend that sin can exist prior to the law which is impossible. it also assumes that God is capricious, and therefore there is nothing inherently wrong, evil, or sinful to begin with.

[ttruscott]

Yep. Without the law, there's no way to know about sin, but then this still necessitates a law to begin with. There simply can't be sin without the law as sin is the transgression of the law. [bold is mine]

1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. If I ask, when it this beginning? it is suggested it is the time of our rebirth awakening to the Spirit but does John use it that way?

Let's consider the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning… the Word of life. This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.� I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the creation of the world. I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion AND JUST MAYBE, to the same definition of the beginning, ie, when the earth was founded...!

1 John 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning. It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is� is NOT in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.� 1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

Now is the time to note that in the Bible, “the beginning� usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place as is evidenced by verses like 1 John 3:8 for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.� This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. And according to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.�, ie at the foundation of the world just before the Satanic rebellion.

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning� has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation.

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to pre-conception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word in the same letter by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

edited to answer the question, this still necessitates a law to begin with... sigh: at the beginning of creation was the commandment, law: 1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. and it was 1. 1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. and 2. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. This would mean that Satan et al rejected the command to put their faith in the Son and refused believe that to love meant to be holy in YHWH's sight.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 33 by ttruscott]

If I ask, when it this beginning? it is suggested it is the time of our rebirth awakening to the Spirit but does John use it that way?

This is looking a bit like a strawman argument. I didn't suggest this so I don't know why it is being included.

Let's consider the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning… the Word of life. This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.� I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before...

I would like to know why you don't include time as part of creation. Even physicists include it along with space. There can be no time "before" the beginning of time. The introduction to John's gospel states "in the beginning was the word" which would easily lead most to suppose the word existed prior to the beginning of creation, but time can't be excluded from creation. It must be created along with everything else, and time must be created at the beginning of time. The word is the beginning and the end, but the word isn't something. The word isn't anything. If it were, it would be created. We know this isn't the case because John points out that it is the word doing the creating, and "all things are created".

If time exists, then it was created as all things that exist are created. Again, there can be no time before the beginning of time.

JUST MAYBE, to the same definition of the beginning, ie, when the earth was founded...!

Sure, but it doesn't then follow that anything existed prior to the beginning of their existence, or the beginning of creation. I don't make this claim with regards to existence because while things aren't eternal, existence isn't a thing. Existence governs all that exists, while the word "exist" is an intransitive verb and governs no object. I'm still waiting for someone to construct a sentence to prove me wrong.

Now is the time to note that in the Bible, “the beginning� usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place as is evidenced by verses like 1 John 3:8 for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Perhaps if the texts had stated: "for the devil sinneth from BEFORE the beginning", you might have an argument, but as it stands here, it makes no sense to talk of acts of creation before "the beginning" of creation. I see no reason not to assume that God created the heavens and populated them with celestial beings, and the earth and populated it with all manner of life including Adam and Eve. Why assume anything else? Why come up with this idea that there is creation going on before the beginning of creation? When one talks of a beginning before the beginning, the word loses its meaning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.� This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

It could be a few trillion years after and it would still be the beginning of sin.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. And according to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.�, ie at the foundation of the world just before the Satanic rebellion.

Now you're beginning to sound like what most people understand the texts to be saying. The foundation of the world comes before the Satanic rebellion, not afterwards. God creates and THEN there is this Satanic rebellion.

To say that we were there is no different than when Jesus points out "Before Abraham was, I AM". The Satanic rebellion is in Lucifer assuming that the glory he reflects originates within himself rather than God. It is the same problem with Adam and all his progeny. Adam was created to reflect God, not the dirt his body was created from. This is what we all do even to this very day. This is why we are still deceived. We've lost our identity in Christ.

Paul points out this deception repeatedly, and still no one seems to notice what he's saying. He points out that nothing can separate us from the love of God. He points out that he's lost his identity because it is now in Christ. Christ himself points out that we are intimately connected to him, and because of this there is nothing we can do apart from him. It is for this reason that the early church referred to itself as "the way". They saw that THEY were the light of the world. They were able to receive the gospel message which is Christ manifest in, with, and through all. The beliefs of the early church would be pronounced anathema by all denominations today.

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning� has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation.

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us?

There's no need to redefine it when one takes into consideration that there is ultimately only Christ.

I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

Probably. Given that all life necessarily lives due to God's spirit animating what lives. To say it is ours is a misnomer. It is God's spirit, or it is Christ's spirit originating in God. The Genitive of Possesssion doesn't exist outside of Christ. It is an incredibly popular delusion.

According to pre-conception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word in the same letter by the same author.

Sounds good to me. I don't see any reason to come up with different meanings, but then I don't see anyone with their own separate spirits either. There is only God's spirit dwelling within all that lives.

edited to answer the question, this still necessitates a law to begin with... sigh: at the beginning of creation was the commandment, law: 1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. and it was 1. 1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. and 2. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. This would mean that Satan et al rejected the command to put their faith in the Son and refused believe that to love meant to be holy in YHWH's sight.

This is all fine, except that it isn't "their faith". Christ is synonymous with faith. It's one of his names in the old testament. Lucifer was holy, and therefore could do nothing except love God, but when one loses sight of the fact that Ultimate reality is completely undifferentiated, a chasm is created, and the one who bears the light becomes the one who conceals it.

Your post doesn't address the underlying fact that when Paul refers to the "schoolmaster", he isn't referring to that commandment. In fact, he isn't referring to any of the commandments. Obedient devotion to God is not a burden, a curse, or a penalty. There is no commandment against keeping the commandments.

It is only when one transgresses God's commandments that one becomes cursed, or burdened with the consequential penalties. That "which was added because of transgressions" is done away with when one sees that there is only Christ. There is no sin in Christ, thus no need for sacrifice.

It is one of the greatest delusions current in Christianity today that Christ's sacrifice does away with the commandments, or even the need for a sacrificial system. Why? Because people still insist on relying upon their ability to keep the commandments rather than the faith of Christ operating in, with, and through the 'new creature in Christ'. The old testament provides abundant evidence showing that one's will and effort are useless in keeping God's commandments, yet all of Christianity continues to believe that our free will decision to keep God's commandments is necessary.

As long as people continue to sin, they will necessarily rely upon the sacrifice of Christ to cover their sin. They are necessarily still under the law. It is only when one has been redeemed and reborn that one can keep God's law perfectly, and this is only due to the fact that it is Christ keeping it, in, with, and through them.

Ultimately, Satan is nothing more than a bad idea, and it's the same bad idea that pervades everyone's separate individual identities today.