10 BRIDEMAIDS

[Truthnightmare]

But the Law itself says, cursed is anyone who does not keep all the words of it ((Deuteronomy 27:26, Jeremiah 11:3, Galatians 3:10)) - and Christ says anyone setting aside and teaching others to set aside the least commandment is called least in the kingdom ((Matthew 5:18)). further, James says anyone guilty of any part of the Law is guilty of all of it ((James 2:10)).

so while there may be degrees of physical punishment for various infractions of the Law, any bit if it transgressed makes us lawbreakers worthy of all the curses in it. it cannot be broken into greater and lesser parts to be kept or deleted. breaking the 10 commandments makes you every bit as guilty of sin as failing to keep your neighbors animal if you find it loose or not wearing the tzitzit on the corners of your garment.

The 10 commandments are neither separate from the Law nor the basis of the Law. He didn't give Israel the Law in order from greatest to least, and He didn't give them the option of choosing which bits of it were important and which were not, and He didn't give it to us as believers in order to seek righteousness through keeping it nor to judge us by it - He gave it to us to know so that we could see Him in it, how it leads to and points to and speaks of Him, and He gave Himself to us and for us so we could be sanctified.

keeping the Law doesn't sanctify us; He sanctifies us. that is exactly what the sign to Israel which is the sabbath was purposed to teach them: that He is The One who sanctifies. therefore be still.

this really don't a tie back to the OP topic, because what is it the foolish ones did not have, and foolishly tried to borrow from. those who had, and went out looking to buy?

what in the world kind of currency were they thinking they could trade for divine oil?

looking at the parable, any chance in **** they were successful at getting oil for wages?

maybe that's not what you're trying to do - i hope not! - but that's the implications of the theology you've been putting in this thread. that the oil of the kingdom of heaven is procured, purchased and kept by keeping selected jots and tittles of the Law.

I definitely get what you’re saying… I see it a bit different.

. Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)
In the above Scripture, God had just saved Israel out of Egyptian bondage; He was now leading them through the wilderness for the forty years and giving them His laws and statutes and teaching them all things again (for they had forgotten their God during their four hundred years of slavery in the land of Egypt).

But when it says "This is the law of the beasts..." (Lev 11:46) it is not like the Ten Commandment Law, it is rather like the "law" of leprosy in the below:
Lev 14:54
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (KJV)
In other words it was God's explanation. Let me explain like this:
When God explains foods, He is giving His explanation on what is healthy to eat (i.e., what is clean to the human body to consume).
When God explains the Medicinal, He is giving His explanation on what is diagnosis and cures of sicknesses (i.e., what is the way to cleanse the human body of disease).
When God explains Commandments, He is giving His explanation on what is commanded by God of men to do and not to do (i.e., what is the way to eternal life of the human soul).
Comparative explanation:
Below is God explaining food Laws, i.e., what is the way of foods for the body:
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)


Below is God explaining Disease Laws, i.e., what is the way of diagnosis and curing of the sick body:
Lev 14:54-57
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. (KJV)

Below is God explaining Commandment Laws, i.e., what is the way that men ought to act under penalty of eternal death:
Exod 20:1-4
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (KJV) [Etc., the Ten Commandments continue through verse 17...]
To say that all this law has the same weight would be to say that eating a piece of bacon (pork is forbade under the food laws) is the same as murdering a man (murder is outlawed in the Ten Commandments). Do you see the folly in calling the food laws the same as Commandment Law?

 

[posthuman]

maybe that's not what you're trying to do - i hope not! - but that's the implications of the theology you've been putting in this thread. that the oil of the kingdom of heaven is procured, purchased and kept by keeping selected jots and tittles of the Law.

@ThyKingdomComeSoon

i am willing to bet you heard it preached, "the 10 are transcendent and eternal! the whole Law is built on the 10! Christians are Unser the 10!"
i have heard thousands of sermons, and i have heard exactly that many many times. but i suspect you never heard what the implications of such a doctrine are - you certainly won't hear it from someone who preaches that doctrine.

and by asserting we are not under the Law i am not saying we should freely sin, lying, committing adultery, coveting, etc.
Adam did not have the Law - nor Abraham or Joseph or Noah. how did they know what is right from what is wrong without written commandments? why did God inscribe the Law in stone? not because stone cannot be broken, HA! see Moses bringing the first copy down the mountain!

It is no accident that the stony hearts of the people will one day be broken when they recognize The End of the Law coming down from heaven again, and no accident that a broken heart and a contrite spirit are acceptable sacrifices per the Psalms but not per Leviticus.

 

[posthuman]

I definitely get what you’re saying… I see it a bit different.

. Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)
In the above Scripture, God had just saved Israel out of Egyptian bondage; He was now leading them through the wilderness for the forty years and giving them His laws and statutes and teaching them all things again (for they had forgotten their God during their four hundred years of slavery in the land of Egypt).

But when it says "This is the law of the beasts..." (Lev 11:46) it is not like the Ten Commandment Law, it is rather like the "law" of leprosy in the below:
Lev 14:54
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (KJV)
In other words it was God's explanation. Let me explain like this:
When God explains foods, He is giving His explanation on what is healthy to eat (i.e., what is clean to the human body to consume).
When God explains the Medicinal, He is giving His explanation on what is diagnosis and cures of sicknesses (i.e., what is the way to cleanse the human body of disease).
When God explains Commandments, He is giving His explanation on what is commanded by God of men to do and not to do (i.e., what is the way to eternal life of the human soul).
Comparative explanation:
Below is God explaining food Laws, i.e., what is the way of foods for the body:
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)


Below is God explaining Disease Laws, i.e., what is the way of diagnosis and curing of the sick body:
Lev 14:54-57
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. (KJV)

Below is God explaining Commandment Laws, i.e., what is the way that men ought to act under penalty of eternal death:
Exod 20:1-4
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (KJV) [Etc., the Ten Commandments continue through verse 17...]
To say that all this law has the same weight would be to say that eating a piece of bacon (pork is forbade under the food laws) is the same as murdering a man (murder is outlawed in the Ten Commandments). Do you see the folly in calling the food laws the same as Commandment Law?

But look at where the 2nd greatest commandment, the basis of all the Law is written:

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.​

Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.​

Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.​

Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.​

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.​

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.​

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.​

Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.​

Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.​

(Leviticus 19:29-37)​

​

anything jump out at you indicating there is no greater commandment besides to love the LORD, and that every other commandment in the Law is lesser than this?
any textual clue that everything else around it is less important?

but that's exactly how God Himself later describes it.

prostituting you daughter? less important.
sabbath? doesn't matter next to this.
sorcery? moot in comparison.
respect for elders? not comparable.
accurate measures? purely secondary.



why is this gold nugget right here in relative obscurity, by the human way of seeing?

 

[Truthnightmare]

@ThyKingdomComeSoon

i am willing to bet you heard it preached, "the 10 are transcendent and eternal! the whole Law is built on the 10! Christians are Unser the 10!"
i have heard thousands of sermons, and i have heard exactly that many many times. but i suspect you never heard what the implications of such a doctrine are - you certainly won't hear it from someone who preaches that doctrine.

and by asserting we are not under the Law i am not saying we should freely sin, lying, committing adultery, coveting, etc.
Adam did not have the Law - nor Abraham or Joseph or Noah. how did they know what is right from what is wrong without written commandments? why did God inscribe the Law in stone? not because stone cannot be broken, HA! see Moses bringing the first copy down the mountain!

It is no accident that the stony hearts of the people will one day be broken when they recognize The End of the Law coming down from heaven again, and no accident that a broken heart and a contrite spirit are acceptable sacrifices per the Psalms but not per Leviticus.

Very interesting…
For until [before] the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed[charged] when there is no law" {Rom 5:13}.

 

[Truthnightmare]

But look at where the 2nd greatest commandment, the basis of all the Law is written:

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.​

Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.​

Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.​

Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.​

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.​

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.​

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.​

Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.​

Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.​

(Leviticus 19:29-37)​

​

anything jump out at you indicating there is no greater commandment besides to love the LORD, and that every other commandment in the Law is lesser than this?
any textual clue that everything else around it is less important?

but that's exactly how God Himself later describes it.

prostituting you daughter? less important.
sabbath? doesn't matter next to this.
sorcery? moot in comparison.
respect for elders? not comparable.
accurate measures? purely secondary.



why is this gold nugget right here in relative obscurity, by the human way of seeing?

Perhaps that is why obedience is so important. Let’s say I was teaching a 1st grade class, and I wrote 10 rules on the board.
One of the rules was don’t get out of your seat. However; one of the kids gets up and hits another kid. Does that mean not getting out of your seat is more important than not hitting someone. After all, I never wrote “don’t hit anyone” But if the kid would have stayed in there seat, they would have been unable to hit anyone.
Man, you bring up some really good points!
Well getting late, hope we talk again. Peace

 

[Magenta]

But the Law itself says, cursed is anyone who does not keep all the words of it ((Deuteronomy 27:26, Jeremiah 11:3, Galatians 3:10)) - and Christ says anyone setting aside and teaching others to set aside the least commandment is called least in the kingdom ((Matthew 5:18)). further, James says anyone guilty of any part of the Law is guilty of all of it ((James 2:10)).

Romans 3:19-20 plus James 2:10

 

[posthuman]

Perhaps that is why obedience is so important. Let’s say I was teaching a 1st grade class, and I wrote 10 rules on the board.
One of the rules was don’t get out of your seat. However; one of the kids gets up and hits another kid. Does that mean not getting out of your seat is more important than not hitting someone. After all, I never wrote “don’t hit anyone” But if the kid would have stayed in there seat, they would have been unable to hit anyone.
Man, you bring up some really good points!
Well getting late, hope we talk again. Peace

That's a great analogy!

And Paul says later, now that Christ has come, we aren't under a schoolmaster anymore.



What about this:

i am a salaried professional, and no one tracks my hours or my vacation. it is completely legitimate for me to take all the time i need and my pay will not change - and I can come in and leave at whatever time seems appropriate to me.
That is not the case with hourly-paid people next to me. they can get fired for missing the time clock, and they can only take off so many days per year.

everything is written for them, and they are judged by what's written.
those things aren't written for me - but what is written for them informs me about what is excessive and what is proper - while at the same time i know that it's also proper what privileges i have should be greater than theirs because of my position.

i am not under their written laws. not at all.
their laws teach me, even though they don't apply to me.
proper behavior doesn't change just because i don't have the same set of rules. i just have more freedom. things that are spelled out for them as wrong aren't spelled out for me, but wrong is wrong and i am expected to know better. in some cases i can do things they can't - i am. trusted to know when the intent of some rules doesn't apply.

this is all based on the knowledge and skillfulness i am. assumed to have, and on the privilege of the position i was granted.


i am expected to be an example. in many ways, to live as though i don't need a written law telling me how to live. the benefits i have are part of that trust the company puts in me.

in some ways i have more responsibilities - i may have to work later than they do when there is a problem, without getting OT for example. if they screw up i might be responsible for not preventing them from screwing up. and in some ways it's harder, because i can't always just look up or ask someone what i am supposed to do. i have to rely on core principles and figure out how to apply them to whatever situation i face.

if they have a problem, they can say, 'I followed the rules but it didn't work' - but i don't have those rules. i have to figure out what to do when rules are insufficient. it is expected, that in me is the power and wisdom to accomplish that - like i have an inner Teacher who knows more than everything the rules were ever able to say...




just thoughts.

good night

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Believe it or not, I am being logical. The Sabbath was omitted because it pointed forward to the rest we find in Jesus. The Hebrew word means "to rest or stop or cease from work." For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For whoever enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. Hebrews 4:3, 9-10

Very interesting Magenta I will ponder on this.

Thanks and be blessed.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

I definitely get what you’re saying… I see it a bit different.

. Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)
In the above Scripture, God had just saved Israel out of Egyptian bondage; He was now leading them through the wilderness for the forty years and giving them His laws and statutes and teaching them all things again (for they had forgotten their God during their four hundred years of slavery in the land of Egypt).

But when it says "This is the law of the beasts..." (Lev 11:46) it is not like the Ten Commandment Law, it is rather like the "law" of leprosy in the below:
Lev 14:54
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (KJV)
In other words it was God's explanation. Let me explain like this:
When God explains foods, He is giving His explanation on what is healthy to eat (i.e., what is clean to the human body to consume).
When God explains the Medicinal, He is giving His explanation on what is diagnosis and cures of sicknesses (i.e., what is the way to cleanse the human body of disease).
When God explains Commandments, He is giving His explanation on what is commanded by God of men to do and not to do (i.e., what is the way to eternal life of the human soul).
Comparative explanation:
Below is God explaining food Laws, i.e., what is the way of foods for the body:
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)


Below is God explaining Disease Laws, i.e., what is the way of diagnosis and curing of the sick body:
Lev 14:54-57
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. (KJV)

Below is God explaining Commandment Laws, i.e., what is the way that men ought to act under penalty of eternal death:
Exod 20:1-4
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (KJV) [Etc., the Ten Commandments continue through verse 17...]
To say that all this law has the same weight would be to say that eating a piece of bacon (pork is forbade under the food laws) is the same as murdering a man (murder is outlawed in the Ten Commandments). Do you see the folly in calling the food laws the same as Commandment Law?

Thank you for this post, I understand it in the same way you do.

Blessings.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Very interesting…
For until [before] the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed[charged] when there is no law" {Rom 5:13}.

what about Cain murdering his brother Abel, did not GOD charge Cain of this murder?

 

[Truthnightmare]

what about Cain murdering his brother Abel, did not GOD charge Cain of this murder?

Yes God charged Cain. But there was no law concerning murder.. thus instead of Cain being stoned he was removed from the land.
However, regarding Cain and his mission, it was not to be interrupted.
Cain is the father of the tares spoken of in Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Yes God charged Cain. But there was no law concerning murder.. thus instead of Cain being stoned he was removed from the land.
However, regarding Cain and his mission, it was not to be interrupted.
Cain is the father of the tares spoken of in Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.[/QUOTE

My point was that there was no law and GOD imputed or charged, punished Cain for his crime.

Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where isAbel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

Rom 5:13 do contradict Gen 4: 1--16.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Heya KCS, well let’s look at it a bit deeper, and perhaps my explanation can remove any contradiction you see.

Ok, you reference {Romans chapter 5} which we shall shall draw heavily from here in our exegesis.

For until [before] the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed[charged] when there is no law" {Rom 5:13}. (I trust that you are using the reliable King James Version Bible). It does not say that they were not doing things that we now (since the Law of Moses) call sin. For without God first saying to us: "Thou shalt not...," there is no wrong nor penalty in doing the particular thing.

In other words, doing something that God doesn't want done, is not a sin until God says "Don't do this, or don’t do that;" Then it becomes sin to do the thing because you have been told and warned not to do it. You are then and only then accountable for that particular deed.

Cain, while he was indeed the murderer of his brother Able, was not charged by God as a murderer would be charged according to God’s law of ‘life for life’. For it was not until after the flood of Noah that God first gave the specific command against murder: "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" {Gen9:6}.


And above, as with all commands of God, He also gave us the consequences for violating same, i.e., "by man shall his blood be shed". God did not have Adam to execute Cain for his transgression, with was his duty under Old testament Hebrew Law as the father of the victim; But the Law was not yet given unto man. We know from the Law (Torah: Genesis-Deuteronomy) which was given to Moses on the Mount, that all murderers are to be tried fairly and promptly executed by stoning. But God, while He did ‘try’ Cain for killing Able and indeed found him guilty {Gen 4:1O}, He did not execute His own Law upon him, which calls for the death penalty. Cain was simply cast out of the Garden of Eden, for he did not belong there because of his deed. God even went so far as to protect Cain from others (6th day creation) who might seek to kill him {Gen 4:1 5}. This would be strange treatment for a murderer had we not understood that Cain could not have violated a law which was not yet given unto men.

So when you read in Romans: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that [because] all have sinned" {Rom 5:12}, you must understand that sin could only have been committed by the man Adam first because he received the Law from God first, i.e., regarding the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil. Therefore, while there were 'misdeeds' done in the world, sin had not entered the world until the first Law was given and violated, this simply happened to fall upon Adam, thus, through Adam sin entered the world because through Adam the Law entered the world.

Kind of a cool subject, you should start a thread on it, maybe we can learn more together.

 

[posthuman]

Ver. 13. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.​

​

The phrase till the Law some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law — that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham— till Moses was born. ​

​

What was the sin in those days, at this rate? Some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, But sin is not imputed when there is no law? ​

​

It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side, that he laid this position down and said, if there be no sin without the Law, how came death to consume all those before the Law? But to me it seems that the sense presently to be given has more to be said for it, and suits better with the Apostle's meaning. And what sense is this? In saying, that till the Law sin was in the world, what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. ​

​

For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death has its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? ​

​

From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam's disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for death reigned, he says, from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.​

​

How did it reign? After the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? It will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all.​

​

For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the one, and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, As by one man sin entered into the world — and, If through the offense of one many be dead: and, Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; and, The judgment was by one to condemnation: and again, If by one (or, the one) man's offense death reigned by one; and Therefore as by the offense of one. And again, As by one man's disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners. ​

​

And so he lets not go of the one, that when the Jew says to you, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? You might be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned? ​

​

And yet sin and grace are not equivalents, death and life are not equivalents, the Devil and God are not equivalents, but there is a boundless space between them. ​

​

When then as well from the nature of the thing as from the power of Him that transacts it, and from the very suitableness thereof (for it suits much better with God to save than to punish), the preëminence and victory is upon this side, what one word have you to say for unbelief, tell me? However, that what had been done was reasonable, he shows in the following words.​

​

Ver. 15. But not as the offense, so is also the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto the many.​

​

For what he says is somewhat of this kind. If sin had so extensive effects, and the sin of one man too; how can grace, and that the grace of God, not the Father only, but also the Son, do otherwise than be the more abundant of the two? For the latter is far the more reasonable supposition. For that one man should be punished on account of another does not seem to be much in accordance with reason. But for one to be saved on account of another is at once more suitable and more reasonable. If then the former took place, much more may the latter. Hence he has shown from these grounds the likelihood and reasonableness of it. For when the former had been made good, this would then be readily admitted. But that it is even necessarily so, he makes good from what follows. How then does he make it good?​

​

Ver. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.​

​

And what is this that he is speaking of? It is that sin had power to bring in death and condemnation; but grace did not do away that one sin only, but also those that followed after in its train. Lest then the words as and so might seem to make the measure of the blessings and the evils equal, and that you might not think, upon hearing of Adam, that it was only that sin which he had brought in which was done away with, he says that it was from many offenses that an indemnity was brought about. ​

​

How is this plain? Because after the numberless sins committed after that in paradise, the matter issued in justification. But where righteousness is, there of necessity follows by all means life, and the countless blessings, as does death where sin was. For righteousness is more than life, since it is even the root of life. ​

​

That there were several goods then brought in, and that it was not that sin only that was taken away, but all the rest along with it, he points out when he says, that the gift was of many offenses unto justification. In which a proof is necessarily included, that death was also torn up by the roots. But since he had said, that the second was greater than the first, he is obliged to give further grounds again for this same thing. For, before, he had said that if one man's sin slew all, much more will the grace of One have the power to save. ​

​

After that he shows that it was not that sin only that was done away by the grace, but all the rest too, and that it was not that the sins were done away only, but that righteousness was given. And Christ did not merely do the same amount of good that Adam did of harm, but far more and greater good. Since then he had made such declarations as these, he wants again here also further confirmation of these. And how does he give this confirmation? He says,​

​

Ver. 17. For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift and (so Field with most manuscripts) of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.​

​

What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man's eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offense, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say grace, but superabundance of grace. For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. ​

​

For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above John 3:3 and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him!​

​

​

​

- Chrysostom, excerpt from homily 10 on Romans, circa 392 AD​

 

[posthuman]

Note that Chrysostom does not see a contradiction between Romans 5 and Genesis 4, and he doesn't try to resolve such an imagined fault in God's word by pretending the Law was given before Moses, which would directly contradict Galatians 3:17.

No need to rewrite history, only need to understand scripture correctly.




smart guy, this Chrysostom.

 

[Magenta]

In other words, doing something that God doesn't want done, is not a sin until God says "Don't do this, or
don’t do that;" Then it becomes sin to do the thing because you have been told and warned not to do it.

How then was sin in the world before the law was given? You even
quoted Romans 5:13 that says sin was in the world before the law.

 

[Truthnightmare]

How then was sin in the world before the law was given? You even
quoted Romans 5:13 that says sin was in the world before the law.

Wassup Magenta,
I’m not quite sure I understand your questioning.
But let me ask you, when do you believe the law was introduced to man? Your answer will aid me in my response.

 

[posthuman]

when do you believe the law was introduced to man

when was Satan commanded not to deceive women?

 

[Truthnightmare]

when was Satan commanded not to deceive women?

When was Cain commanded not to murder his brother?
I guess what it boils down to, is when was the first time God told someone not to do a particular thing….

 

[posthuman]

When was Cain commanded not to murder his brother?
I guess what it boils down to, is when was the first time God told someone not to do a particular thing….

Do people need an itemized list of all wrongs before they know right from wrong?