'The Message' on Romans 5:13

[mattrose]

On Tuesday's broadcast a caller asked about Romans 5:13. I have also had questions about this verse along the same lines as the caller. I did a bit of research and, strangely enough, while I was reading the passage in a bunch of different translations/paraphrases, I read Peterson's "The Message" and found it interesting. Here it is...

Romans 5:12-14
You know the story of how Adam landed us in the dilemma we're in - first
sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death. That sin
disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone, but the extent of
the disturbance was not clear until God spelled it out in detail to Moses.
So death, this huge abyss separating us from God, dominated the landscape
from Adam to Moses. Even those who didn't sin precisely as Adam did by
disobeying a specific command of God still had to experience this
termination of life, this separation from God. But Adam, who got us into
this, also points ahead to the One who will get us out of it."

I'm not sure what you think of The Message, but I wonder if he hasn't hit
on something here. "But the extent of the disturbance was not clear" is
his interpretation of "But sin was not taken into account." The word
rendered "account" in the NIV ("impute" in the KJV) is, as N.T. Wright points
out, a paperwork/banking kind of term. Peterson is interpreting it to
mean that the sins of the people between Adam and Moses did not lead to a
piling up of paper work against them. Their sin was present (b/c they did
have a more general law- knowledge of good and evil) and therefore they
paid for it via death, BUT those sins weren't creating an overwhelming
case against humanity since they weren't being recorded as such.

Once the law came, violations were logged. That seems to be what Paul is
saying a few verses later when he says "the law was added so the trespass
might increase." The case against Israel was, in a sense, stronger than
the case against humanity b/c there was a metaphorical paper trail. The
extent of the sin issue became clear through the law. I think this is a
pretty strong interpretation.

[steve]

Thanks for that insight, Matt.

[TK]

I like the Message from time to time.

Matt wrote:

The case against Israel was, in a sense, stronger than the case against humanity b/c their was a metaphorical paper trail.

Do you think the "paper trail" was for God's benefit, or for Israel's? (I am not even sure if this question makes sense).

TK

[darinhouston]

Even those who didn't sin precisely as Adam did by
disobeying a specific command of God still had to experience this
termination of life, this separation from God.

This seems to introduce the idea of original sin (that it's not our own sins but Adams that cause our death/separation).

[mattrose]

TK...

I think, if this interpretation is correct, the paper trail was to demonstrate, through Israel, that judgment of sinners is just. God knows it's just (justice flows from God naturally). But it is one thing to know a party is guilty and another to demonstrate it.

Darin...

I think it speaks toward the source of our death/separation, but it also addresses the fact that we individually ratify that original mistake by our own rebellious actions. We may not sin precisely as Adam, but we sin nonetheless.

[TK]

matt wrote:

the paper trail was to demonstrate, through Israel, that judgment of sinners is just.God knows it's just (justice flows from God naturally). But it is one thing to know a party is guilty and another to demonstrate it.

A good constitutional lawyer might scream "no fair- ex post facto law!" but i suppose God can do what He wants.

Was conscience the only source of "knowledge of the law" prior to the written code? If so, that is a rather subjective measure-- thus the necessity of a written law. but of course, only Jews had God's written law- so what about everybody else? They may have had laws (Hammurabi's code, e.g.) but these weren't from God(at least directly).

Do you think the law's main purpose was to act as a "deterrent" to bad behavior, or to point out ot people how bad they were, or both?

TK

[darinhouston]

How does Romans 7 fit in? Paul was speaking individually here it seems:

7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

[mattrose]

In my opinion it fits in with Peterson's interpretation pretty well....

7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

The Law serves a good purpose. Until the Law was given, we didn't understand the strength of the case against us.

9I was once alive apart from the Law;

I think this was be the most controversial part of this interpretation, for it assumes that Paul means, here, that he (or generic mankind) FELT he was alive before the coming of the Law despite the fact that he (or generic mankind) really was NOT alive. We didn't know our guilt until the law came.

but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good,

The Law is, in essence, a good thing, it (at least the moral law) is how we will live when in proper relationship to God. But since we are not in proper relationship to God, the Law makes our separation very obvious. The flesh, un/under-influenced by the Spirit, has wrongful authority and leads us in rebellion to the Law (since it is essentially the Law of the Spirit, which the flesh wages war against).

so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Exactly. Through the coming of the Law, we came to realize how utterly sinful we are.

[mattrose]

Was conscience the only source of "knowledge of the law" prior to the written code? If so, that is a rather subjective measure-- thus the necessity of a written law. but of course, only Jews had God's written law- so what about everybody else? They may have had laws (Hammurabi's code, e.g.) but these weren't from God(at least directly).

I shall say to start out that I feel in over my head trying to comment on the deepness of Paul's thought here. But my initial response would be to say that God had the Gentiles in mind just as much as the Jews in mind when He gave the Jews the Law. I think in some deep mysterious way God was narrowing in on the problem so that He could make a solution big enough to deal with the whole issue. Mankind as a whole had a problem. He narrowed it into Israel. And, ultimately, He narrowed it down to Jesus Himself. And because He pinned sin down on the cross, it has been dealt with universally. Just like sin had its start in Adam (one man), sin had its end in Jesus (one man).

So my short answer is that 'everyone' else was in mind the whole time.

Do you think the law's main purpose was to act as a "deterrent" to bad behavior, or to point out ot people how bad they were, or both?

I think the Law itself (moral law) just flows from God's nature. In the original creation, it would have come quite naturally b/c we'd be in proper relationship to God (led by God's Spirit). But after the Fall, we were not led by the Spirit and so the Law (which is spiritual) was overruled by the flesh resulting in guilt (awareness that something was wrong). In a Fallen context, the purpose of the Law is to point out the problem.

[mikew]

Paul identified two distinct ideas (in 5:13,20) in a situation where we tend to think of them as the same. The two ideas are that of sin and that of transgression.

Sin consists of acts that are fleshly including behavior that is selfish, boastful or lustful (i.e. without proper restrictions). In Gen 6:3 God showed that He would not endure mankind forever since man was also flesh. This sin (or maybe death) was the sentence or penalty applied to Adam, and the rest of mankind were not found guilty (i.e. as transgressors) but rather were under this penalty of Adam. This is sort of like a pregnant woman convicted and sentenced to jail for a crime -- the baby in that mother's womb is then in jail, under the effect of the same sentence, having committed no crime. I find this sort of distinction in verse 16 where in the ASV translation shows two words: judgment and condemnation -- only Adam was judged but this judgment led to a condemnation that all man would suffer (vs. 18).

Transgressions were only possible to those who were obligated to the law of Moses and hence only was in reference to the Jews. Paul didn't yet get to describe any benefits of the law to the Jews but in vv. 20-21 Paul has basically shown that in response to the transgressions (sins made into violations of the law) of the Jews, God reacted with a greater gift of grace. This gift was to send the Messiah to deliver the Jews( and, in connection with that same Messiah, to benefit all people).

What is most interesting here is that the discussion of the law and the Jews in 5:12-21 appears to be a minor goal rather than the prime focus. The minor goal here aims toward showing the gentile audience that the Jews had a benefit in relation to their apparent transgressions.

This is a one of the arguments I'm developing for the broader proposal on the flow and context of Romans.