http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/ From the mixed-up files of Christopher Kou Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:51:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-6267 Awenydd » Who is I in Romans 7? Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:53:18 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-6267 [...] Law. He generally speaks of Jews as being “under the law” and Gentiles as being “apart from the law.” Think Romans 2:12-14 when he is arguing that both Jew and Gentile stand equally condemned [...] [...] Law. He generally speaks of Jews as being “under the law” and Gentiles as being “apart from the law.” Think Romans 2:12-14 when he is arguing that both Jew and Gentile stand equally condemned [...]

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3928 Miwaza Jemimah Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3928 Romans 5:13-14 is the passage that truly have to be kept in mind when i write about "Jews and Gentiles" related themes. Romans 5:13-14 is the passage that truly have to be kept in mind when i write about "Jews and Gentiles" related themes.

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3927 David Houf Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:38:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3927 Yep. Yep.

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3926 Christopher Kou Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:24:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3926 David, it's interesting you bring up both Cain and the giving of the death penalty to Noah. Apparently the death penalty was not in force until after the flood. So Cain, while guilty, did not fall "under that law," as it were. And thus, no life for life penalty.Sacrificial principles were obviously in effect. But of course, we don't know the details of any hypothetical commandment that God may have given Adam and Eve. It could be that the pre-Mosaic sacrificial practice was instituted by Adam in keeping with God's example when He slaughtered animals to clothe Adam and Eve.Which gives me an idea for another post . . . unrelated, but something I haven't seen too many places.I don't think Paul has these isolated commandments so much in mind when he makes his discourse in Romans. However, a violation of any explicitly given commandments I think would certainly fall within Paul's definition of "transgression" if we were to ask him. David, it's interesting you bring up both Cain and the giving of the death penalty to Noah. Apparently the death penalty was not in force until after the flood. So Cain, while guilty, did not fall "under that law," as it were. And thus, no life for life penalty.Sacrificial principles were obviously in effect. But of course, we don't know the details of any hypothetical commandment that God may have given Adam and Eve. It could be that the pre-Mosaic sacrificial practice was instituted by Adam in keeping with God's example when He slaughtered animals to clothe Adam and Eve.Which gives me an idea for another post . . . unrelated, but something I haven't seen too many places.I don't think Paul has these isolated commandments so much in mind when he makes his discourse in Romans. However, a violation of any explicitly given commandments I think would certainly fall within Paul's definition of "transgression" if we were to ask him.

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3925 David Houf Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:12:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3925 Chris, I think you're right that Paul is indeed talking about a different law than that given from Adam to Moses. The passage is clearly referring to Torah. I would however be curious how you would understand, if at all, the interplay between this text and the earlier law-i.e., the laws given immediately after the Fall and Flood. Cain/Abel tells us that there was a sacrificial system implemented, among many other things. Life for life is implemented at the giving of the Noahic covenant, Gen 9:8. Does the existence of these laws have any play in Rom 5? Chris, I think you're right that Paul is indeed talking about a different law than that given from Adam to Moses. The passage is clearly referring to Torah. I would however be curious how you would understand, if at all, the interplay between this text and the earlier law-i.e., the laws given immediately after the Fall and Flood. Cain/Abel tells us that there was a sacrificial system implemented, among many other things. Life for life is implemented at the giving of the Noahic covenant, Gen 9:8. Does the existence of these laws have any play in Rom 5?

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3924 Christopher Kou Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:08:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3924 This might be a good analogy. If sin is the act of smashing face-first into a brick wall, all who do it are equally injured. One man has no light and so smashes into the wall he cannot see. It's inexcusable, and claiming ignorance will not elevate his injury. He should have felt his way ahead.Another man is given a lantern by the town guard so that he may see his way. And he willfully smashes headfirst into the wall anyway.The first man is the Gentile, and the second the Jew. Having the light does no good for the Jew if he does not follow it. Not having the light is no excuse for the Gentile. This might be a good analogy. If sin is the act of smashing face-first into a brick wall, all who do it are equally injured. One man has no light and so smashes into the wall he cannot see. It's inexcusable, and claiming ignorance will not elevate his injury. He should have felt his way ahead.Another man is given a lantern by the town guard so that he may see his way. And he willfully smashes headfirst into the wall anyway.The first man is the Gentile, and the second the Jew. Having the light does no good for the Jew if he does not follow it. Not having the light is no excuse for the Gentile.

]]> http://chriskou.com/2010/01/21/perishing-apart-from-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3923 Christopher Kou Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:53:00 +0000 http://chriskou.com/?p=1285#comment-3923 You specifically mentioned Romans 2:11-15, so I want to take a closer look at that.>>>For God shows no partiality.For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.<<<First here is the verse I was talking about. Paul says those without the law (Gentiles) will perish without it. Those UNDER IT (Jews) will be judged by it. Paul generally distinguishes between Jew and Gentile as those "under the law" and those apart from it.>>>For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.<<<There are a few things going on in this passage here. First, again Paul speaks of the Gentiles as those who "do not have the law." He then argues that they "by nature" do some things that the law requires. This is a function of the thing God gave us that we call conscience. When the Gentiles follow their conscience, Paul says, they are "a law unto themselves." That is, they are self-governing, even though they, as Paul RESTATES, "do not have the law." With Paul making so many references to the Gentiles as "those who do not have the law," I don't think we can be honest with the text and still insist that "YES THEY DO!">>>They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.<<<The sort of moral law that they have written on their hearts is sufficient only to condemn. It guides them in a sense, but it's like a blind man feeling his way in the dark. The Jews were the ones to whom the oracles were given. They had the light and transgressed all the same.I don't think we should force this "work of the law" on the heart to mean more than the text will bear. Paul's intent here is simply to show that all are under condemnation. This should not be taken to nullify all references to Gentiles as those "who do not have the law," which plainly refers to the Mosaic law. You specifically mentioned Romans 2:11-15, so I want to take a closer look at that.>>>For God shows no partiality.For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.<<<First here is the verse I was talking about. Paul says those without the law (Gentiles) will perish without it. Those UNDER IT (Jews) will be judged by it. Paul generally distinguishes between Jew and Gentile as those "under the law" and those apart from it.>>>For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.<<<There are a few things going on in this passage here. First, again Paul speaks of the Gentiles as those who "do not have the law." He then argues that they "by nature" do some things that the law requires. This is a function of the thing God gave us that we call conscience. When the Gentiles follow their conscience, Paul says, they are "a law unto themselves." That is, they are self-governing, even though they, as Paul RESTATES, "do not have the law." With Paul making so many references to the Gentiles as "those who do not have the law," I don't think we can be honest with the text and still insist that "YES THEY DO!">>>They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.<<<The sort of moral law that they have written on their hearts is sufficient only to condemn. It guides them in a sense, but it's like a blind man feeling his way in the dark. The Jews were the ones to whom the oracles were given. They had the light and transgressed all the same.I don't think we should force this "work of the law" on the heart to mean more than the text will bear. Paul's intent here is simply to show that all are under condemnation. This should not be taken to nullify all references to Gentiles as those "who do not have the law," which plainly refers to the Mosaic law.

]]>