Understanding the entering of the law, at Romans 5:20
Dec 24, 2013 9:29:24 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 24, 2013 9:29:24 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
_________________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING THE ENTERING OF THE LAW, AT ROMANS 5:20
”Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”
Most think that this entering of the law, refers to the receiving of the law by Moses at Sinai.
It doesn’t.
Common sense should tell us that when Moses received the tables of stone with the inscriptions on them, those in down town Rio De Janeiro didn’t all of a sudden feel an urge to ramp up their sin. Nor those in the Congo. Nor the Eskimos.
Nor even Israel: they were already in full swing in their ‘Moses-has-gone-away’ party at the bottom of the mount.
And of course there was a relatively-wet event a few years earlier which seemed to suggest that (even at that stage) God thought that man’s sin had gone far enough:
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually ... And, behold, I, even I [(God)], do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” Gen 6:5,17.
And when that didn’t do the trick, He traded in the swimming pool for a furnace:
“And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous ... And [Abraham] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace” Gen 19:20,28.
Of course what we are alluding to is the statement in our head quote that the reason the law entered, was "that the offence might abound". It appears there had been 'a whole lot o' shakin' goin' on' well before Moses received the law.
So what this verse is actually speaking about, is the command which entered in Eden:
“Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Gen 3:11
to which commandment Paul also primarily refers at Rom 7:9, as it were through the mouth of his father Adam:
“For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”.
And so note here that Paul uses the term "the commandment" and "the law" interchangably1 : the commandment in Eden is considered as being synonymous with the law of Moses. For Moses is the head of all law. For all law – any conceivable law concerning spiritual matters – is subsumed under the law which commands us to love God with all our heart (that which is called “the greatest commandment”), which commandment was given by Moses.
That is, although the law officially entered at Sinai, its effective entering was right back in Eden. Commensurately, although the Cross happened 2000 years ago, its effect was right back in Eden: we are told at Revelation 13:8 that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, which is why, whether one lives BC or AD, one is only ever saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.2
1 The apostle John does the exact same thing at 1 John 3:4,23, for although most think he is at 3:4 referring to the OT (deontic) law, he is in fact referring to the law of faith, which law he subsequently exhausts by the commandment at 3:23 to believe on Jesus Christ and love the brethren.
2 See also our work: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".
So now that we have established that the law (effectively) entered at Eden, we necessarily understand that because the reason for such was that the offence might abound, the offence had to first of all be present. For else it could not be said that it might be made to abound.
That offence, is found at Rom 1:21:
“when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful”.
It was this offence – an offence against royal protocol – which was made to abound by the commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
For God’s intent was not for us to live forever talking to animals and pruning trees, but to glorify Himself in His Son, and commensurately, for the Son to “learn obedience by the things He suffered”. The offence Adam was in (along with us, for we were in him - see Heb 7:9,10, 1 Cor 15:22) therefore had to be made to abound (unto realised spiritual death), for unless man has realised he is dead toward God, there can be no realisation of his need for a saviour.
And so in the very next verse following our head quote, we read:
"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 5:21.
Summarily ...
There was no better way to get the offence to abound, than to tell him who was in the offence, what not to do.
For:
"the strength of sin is the law" 1 Cor 15:56.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
________
Postscript
It is no doubt tempting to regard the "offence" of Romans 5 according to convention, and in particular, as that which refers to the (actual) transgression that was Adam's eating from the wrong tree. For we are as human beings prone to think of "sins" rather than "sin". However, although Paul does indeed refer to "sins" in his writings (see Rom 7:5), the concepts he teaches are more to do with its parent, (the state that is) sin (itself). We are reminded, for instance, of his reference to the "man of sin" (2 Thes 2:3) which, although commonly thought to be in reference to a particular man who fills a role called "Anti-Christ", is simply in reference to the anti-Christ present in him whom we (generically) refer to as 'the man on the street'.
And so and as we have implied, the primary culprit responsible for Adam's and our death, was not the (actual) transgression, but the state of being which provided for the transgression. It was this latter which was in fact "the offence" and which was made to abound unto the transgression which actually brought about (the realisation of) death. For in order for the law to invoke transgression, it has to first of all have something to work with.
And so in this:
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound ... ",
and particularly with this "Moreover", what Paul is in fact saying is:
"Moreover, and that which you are all aware of and which we have just been describing, the law entered that the offence might abound ...".
That is, he is not without notice and in unconnected fashion introducing a new idea, but is in fact sweeping back over what he has just been teaching, filling in the landscape he has just outlined.
_________________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING THE ENTERING OF THE LAW, AT ROMANS 5:20
”Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”
Most think that this entering of the law, refers to the receiving of the law by Moses at Sinai.
It doesn’t.
Common sense should tell us that when Moses received the tables of stone with the inscriptions on them, those in down town Rio De Janeiro didn’t all of a sudden feel an urge to ramp up their sin. Nor those in the Congo. Nor the Eskimos.
Nor even Israel: they were already in full swing in their ‘Moses-has-gone-away’ party at the bottom of the mount.
And of course there was a relatively-wet event a few years earlier which seemed to suggest that (even at that stage) God thought that man’s sin had gone far enough:
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually ... And, behold, I, even I [(God)], do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” Gen 6:5,17.
And when that didn’t do the trick, He traded in the swimming pool for a furnace:
“And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous ... And [Abraham] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace” Gen 19:20,28.
Of course what we are alluding to is the statement in our head quote that the reason the law entered, was "that the offence might abound". It appears there had been 'a whole lot o' shakin' goin' on' well before Moses received the law.
So what this verse is actually speaking about, is the command which entered in Eden:
“Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Gen 3:11
to which commandment Paul also primarily refers at Rom 7:9, as it were through the mouth of his father Adam:
“For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”.
And so note here that Paul uses the term "the commandment" and "the law" interchangably1 : the commandment in Eden is considered as being synonymous with the law of Moses. For Moses is the head of all law. For all law – any conceivable law concerning spiritual matters – is subsumed under the law which commands us to love God with all our heart (that which is called “the greatest commandment”), which commandment was given by Moses.
That is, although the law officially entered at Sinai, its effective entering was right back in Eden. Commensurately, although the Cross happened 2000 years ago, its effect was right back in Eden: we are told at Revelation 13:8 that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, which is why, whether one lives BC or AD, one is only ever saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.2
1 The apostle John does the exact same thing at 1 John 3:4,23, for although most think he is at 3:4 referring to the OT (deontic) law, he is in fact referring to the law of faith, which law he subsequently exhausts by the commandment at 3:23 to believe on Jesus Christ and love the brethren.
2 See also our work: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".
So now that we have established that the law (effectively) entered at Eden, we necessarily understand that because the reason for such was that the offence might abound, the offence had to first of all be present. For else it could not be said that it might be made to abound.
That offence, is found at Rom 1:21:
“when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful”.
It was this offence – an offence against royal protocol – which was made to abound by the commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
For God’s intent was not for us to live forever talking to animals and pruning trees, but to glorify Himself in His Son, and commensurately, for the Son to “learn obedience by the things He suffered”. The offence Adam was in (along with us, for we were in him - see Heb 7:9,10, 1 Cor 15:22) therefore had to be made to abound (unto realised spiritual death), for unless man has realised he is dead toward God, there can be no realisation of his need for a saviour.
And so in the very next verse following our head quote, we read:
"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 5:21.
Summarily ...
There was no better way to get the offence to abound, than to tell him who was in the offence, what not to do.
For:
"the strength of sin is the law" 1 Cor 15:56.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
________
Postscript
It is no doubt tempting to regard the "offence" of Romans 5 according to convention, and in particular, as that which refers to the (actual) transgression that was Adam's eating from the wrong tree. For we are as human beings prone to think of "sins" rather than "sin". However, although Paul does indeed refer to "sins" in his writings (see Rom 7:5), the concepts he teaches are more to do with its parent, (the state that is) sin (itself). We are reminded, for instance, of his reference to the "man of sin" (2 Thes 2:3) which, although commonly thought to be in reference to a particular man who fills a role called "Anti-Christ", is simply in reference to the anti-Christ present in him whom we (generically) refer to as 'the man on the street'.
And so and as we have implied, the primary culprit responsible for Adam's and our death, was not the (actual) transgression, but the state of being which provided for the transgression. It was this latter which was in fact "the offence" and which was made to abound unto the transgression which actually brought about (the realisation of) death. For in order for the law to invoke transgression, it has to first of all have something to work with.
And so in this:
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound ... ",
and particularly with this "Moreover", what Paul is in fact saying is:
"Moreover, and that which you are all aware of and which we have just been describing, the law entered that the offence might abound ...".
That is, he is not without notice and in unconnected fashion introducing a new idea, but is in fact sweeping back over what he has just been teaching, filling in the landscape he has just outlined.