How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

[Andre]

I will start a dedicated thread for the Law of God in the NT (Romans 2 etc) - that way we can stay focused on both of these topics.

in Christ,

Bob

Good idea, we are getting a discussion of the nature and status of the Law mixed in with what is really a separate matter - whether OSAS can survive the implications of Romans 11.

 

[Marcia]

I doubt that Jesus ever said anything like this.

I didn't say he did - I said he taught it.

If people could keep the law, why did Jesus come to fulfill it? Only Jesus kept the Law perfectly.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matt. 5:17

I doubt you will be able to make a case that Jesus is actually explicating the Law of Moses. I suggest that He is instead, transcending it in these teachings. Remember the form of his teaching "it is written this, but I tell you that...."

I disagree - he was showing that no one can keep the Law.

Besides, Paul certainly claimed that He kept the Law of Moses:

...as to the (B)righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless

Blameless does not mean he kept it perfectly but outwardly, he kept it. This was true of the Pharisees. He is showing how good a Jew he was.

5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless

The Law was given to show that man cannot keep it - that man can never meet God's standards. Galatians would be a good book to see that.

...for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Gal. 2:21

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, " THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." Gal 3:11

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Gal. 5:4

Also

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Heb. 10:1

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't say he did - I said he taught it.

If people could keep the law, why did Jesus come to fulfill it? Only Jesus kept the Law perfectly.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matt. 5:17

Jesus perfectly fulled the Lev 23 law regarding the Passover Lamb - not merely by perfectly keeping Passover - but by BEING the promised Passover Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world -- which the Passover predicted.

Jesus also perfectly fulfilled the Lev 19:18 law "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Thus Jesus was sinless - He perfectly kept that which God commands in the Word of God.

No other human has done that -- for "All have sinned".

But what people miss is that Romans 6 argues that we are NOT to be slaves to sinning. As Christians - We are to be obedient .

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Please give us any one such reference - chapter and verse where Paul, or any other writer says that it is impossible to keep the Law of Moses.

I 'll quote more Scripture if you wish. James 2:10 is a good one.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I have done my part - I have provided a text from Phillipians 3 where Paul declares he was, yes, blameless, in respect to keeping the Law.

I have refuted this already. Didn't you read my post? Paul didn't say he kept all the law, only the righteousness of the law. Do the grammar. Find out the difference.

It will be interesting, and disturbing for we "in-errantness" types, if you can find a text that will force us to accept internal inconsistency in the Bible.

There is no inconsistency if you keep things in context. You will not do that.

With respect to the law:
Romans 3:9-20 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law? No one can keep it. No one can do good. Doing good is keeping the law.

 

[Andre]

I 'll quote more Scripture if you wish. James 2:10 is a good one.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

This does not refute my assertion. James is simply saying that those people who violate the law at one point are guilty of it all. This statement in no way says anything at all about the possibility that some people might indeed keep the law.

I have refuted this already. Didn't you read my post? Paul didn't say he kept all the law, only the righteousness of the law. Do the grammar. Find out the difference.

We may have a disagreement over semantics. I will get back to you on this.

With respect to the law:
Romans 3:9-20 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law? No one can keep it. No one can do good. Doing good is keeping the law.

This text never says that no one can keep the law.

This text indeed asserts the universality of human sin. And it claims that even if you keep the law, you cannot be justified by it. And it claims that the law gives knowledge of sin.

But, there is absolutely nothing in this text that says that it is impossible for a person to keep the Law of Moses. Are you going to say that sin only exists when the Law of Moses is broken? If that were true, and it clearly is not (see Romans 5), then you would have a point since that would mean that universality of sin means universality of breaking the Law of Moses.

 

[DHK]

This does not refute my assertion. James is simply saying that those people who violate the law at one point are guilty of it all. This statement in no way says anything at all about the possibility that some people might indeed keep the law.

Let's not philosophize, or play games of semantics. We know the truth. I will allow you to demonstrate it and give evidence. If you can't give evidence then consider the matter closed.
We know that Jesus was sinless in every area concerning the law. He was completely sinless in all things.

Give evidence of one person that was sinless. If there is a possibility that someone has kept all the law, then where is that person?

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

Sin is a transgression of the law. 1John 3:4

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here again is a verse for your pipe.

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

[DHK]

Here again is a verse for your pipe.

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

And the preceding verse:
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And I am righteous too. Generally speaking I keep the commands of God. This is not a difficult verse. It doesn't say they were sinless, for all have sinned.

Romans 4:2-3 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

They were made righteous the same way that Abraham was: by faith and not by works. Their life consisted in service at the Temple. It was a life of obedience to God. They were faithful, as many are today. That is the testimony of Scripture. The Bible does not say they were sinless. Don't read into Scripture more than what is there.

1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
--The first qualification of a pastor is that he be "blameless," but that does not mean without sin. It simply has the sense of above reproach, having a good testimony.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: And I am righteous too. Generally speaking I keep the commands of God. This is not a difficult verse. It doesn't say they were sinless, for all have sinned.

HP: First, you consistently play with words. One could have sinned in the past, yet repented and had those sins remitted thereby making one pure and righteous. Obviously whatever they had done in the past was under the blood if in fact they had sinned, and were currently walking in ALL the commandments and ordinaces of God presently.

There was not a word about ‘generally walking’ in the commandments of the Lord, but rather the clear testimony by God that they were walking holy before God. The position that has been taken, and I believe it to be the position that you have taken, is that no one can walk sinless before the Lord. That position is absolutely false according to this passage. They were walking sinless.
“ Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” When one is declared righteous by God, and is walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances, you could not paint a picture of walking sinless before the Lord any better than that.

Why would you desire to play the part of a miserable comforter, and try to pin sin on these two individuals after listening to God’s testimony of their lives? Go ahead. Fill your cup to the full and hurl your false accusations of sin against two God said were indeed righteous, not simply due to the righteousness of having sins that are past forgiven, but were WALKING in full obedience to ALL the law.

I for one believe God tires of testifying to the righteous character of His saints just to have that character belittled by those trying to bring everyone down to the level they must live on. Belittle yourself, or throw your stones at me or anyone else on this board if you must, but leave God’s testimony of His saints as He has spoken concerning them as God Himself said it. God’s law can be obeyed. There have been and are many saints walking in full obedience to Gods law even as we speak with the help afforded them moment by moment by the Holy Spirit.

 

[steaver]

HP: First, you consistently play with words. One could have sinned in the past, yet repented and had those sins remitted thereby making one pure and righteous. Obviously whatever they had done in the past was under the blood if in fact they had sinned, and were currently walking in ALL the commandments and ordinaces of God presently.

The position that has been taken, and I believe it to be the position that you have taken, is that no one can walk sinless before the Lord. That position is absolutely false according to this passage. They were walking sinless.
“ Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” When one is declared righteous by God, and is walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances, you could not paint a picture of walking sinless before the Lord any better than that.

Why would you desire to play the part of a miserable comforter, and try to pin sin on these two individuals after listening to God’s testimony of their lives? Go ahead. Fill your cup to the full and hurl your false accusations of sin against two God said were indeed righteous, not simply due to the righteousness of having sins that are past forgiven, but were WALKING in full obedience to ALL the law.

Then according to your pov Jesus was not the only sinless person to walk this earth.

Hbr 4:15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

I wonder what would have happened in this account if one of these sinless persons you speak of had brought the woman to Jesus;

Jhn 8:7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

When do you think Zacharias and Elisabeth did sin? Before Luke's testimony of them or after?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: When do you think Zacharias and Elisabeth did sin? Before Luke's testimony of them or after?

HP: You tell me. All I am saying is that at the time God wrote about them they were righteous before the Lord walking in ALL the law AND the ordinances blameless. I will leave it up to you or someone else to ascribe sin to their lives.


As I mentioned on another thread, the argument seems to be if in fact sin was ever noted in ones life that that somehow proves one cannot be sinless and that no one can keep the laws of God. That is simply false. If one is not made sinless at salvation, in that all sins that are past are forgiven and under the blood and ones heart made white as snow and blameless, they are not converted. There is no reason why a converted man cannot walk in that purified state, walking righteously before the Lord subsequent to that cleansing with the help proffered by the Holy Spirit. Even if he does sin subsequent to being cleansed, he can do his first works over and receive renewed cleansing and continue from that point sinless. Walking sinless does not signify that one has not sinned in the past nor that they cannot sin in the future. It is a state where all past sins are covered by the blood and one is currently walking in obedience with the Lord with the help of the Holy Spirit. We should all strive to walk such a consistent walk with the Lord.

“Deeper Experiences of Famous Christians” gives clear testimony to such holy lives before the Lord. It is an excellent read.

 

[steaver]

HP: You tell me. All I am saying is that at the time God wrote about them they were righteous before the Lord walking in ALL the law AND the ordinances blameless. I will leave it up to you or someone else to ascribe sin to their lives.

Now wait a minute, you are the one who insisted that these two were "sinless". Sinless means "without sin".

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Two seemingly opposing statements yet the same author written within the same letter.

Can you harmonize the two?

John says;

1Jo 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


First John says if you say you know Jesus and do not keep God's commandments you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

Then John says "if you do sin". Sin is the transgression of the Commandments or in other words the NOT keeping thereof.

Can you explain so that both are true?

:godisgood:

 

[BobRyan]

With respect to the law:
Romans 3:9-20 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law? No one can keep it. No one can do good. Doing good is keeping the law.

Romans 3 is describing the sinful nature apart from the Gospel. So again this is a good grasp of the LOST person being confronted by the Law of God -- and as I said there are those who get that part of the issue very well.

Romans 6 is describing the perspective of the SAVED person w.r.t the Law and there slavery to sinning is determined to be the LOST state while freedom from that slavery is the SAVED state.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That may be so, but this is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses still applies.

You seem to be arguing as if you discount the possibilty that the plan of redemption that God is working out in the world never has transition points and that what is true in the Old Testament is true this side of the cross.

You are really constructing a strawman here, implicitly setting me in the role of someone with the "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" mindset. However, that claim cannot stick - I am in no way saying the Law of Moses is a bad thing. It is a good thing whose time came to an end at the cross:

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

I suggest a picture where the Law of Moses served a particular goal in the plan of God and that goal was fulfilled at the cross. So the Law is now retired, having done its job. I am not sure how you can avoid the implications of several clear statements by Paul that the Law of Moses has been abolished, not least the one from Ephesians 2 as per my last post.

That is true of the ceremonial law and as Paul says in Heb 10 Christ put a stop to sacrifices and offerings by His once for all atoning sacrifice on the Cross.

So I agree that there was a huge transition point between the nation church concept established at Sinai with its ceremonial system of predictive laws - predicting the coming of the Messiah - vs the post-Cross Christian age (persecuted church model) that we have now.

However Christ did not put a stop to
Ex 20 --
"you shall have no other God's before Me"
"you shall not covet"
"honor your father and mother"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".

When Paul is rebuked because he insults the high priest - Paul quotes Moses and confesses that he (Paul) was therefore wrong to insult the high priest.

Paul deals specifically with the question of whether our faith actually does abolish the Law of God as we find it in scripture "do we then make void THE LAW by our Faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law" Rom 3:31 making it clear in 1Cor 7:19 that he is talkinga bout "The commandments of God" and in Eph 6:1-2 making it clear that the FITH commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" is the FIRST one in that set of commandments "with a promise" as we find it ordered/placed in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

--He kept the "righteousness" which was in the law, not the law itself.
He was a "righteous" person as far as he was concerned.

Remember what Jesus said about this.
"Unless your righteous exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise be saved."

Paul did not say he kept the law.

This is the "semantics" issue to which I refer. The Law of Moses contained a sacrificial means to remediate "accidental" breakings of the Law. So as, you seem to be saying, Paul almost certainly did not keep the Law in the stringent sense that he never ever "broke" a dictate of the Law. I will agree that there were times when he probably did indeed break the law in this sense.

However, there are ways that the Law of Moses can be broken that are beyond remediation by the practices of sacrifice. This is the so-called "sinning with a high hand" - sinning intentionally.

Paul's statement of Pjillipians 3 does not requires that we understand that Paul never accidentally broke the Law of Moses, but it does require us to understand that he never broke it "with a high hand" - with deliberate, considered intent.

 

[DHK]

HP: You tell me. All I am saying is that at the time God wrote about them they were righteous before the Lord walking in ALL the law AND the ordinances blameless. I will leave it up to you or someone else to ascribe sin to their lives.


As I mentioned on another thread, the argument seems to be if in fact sin was ever noted in ones life that that somehow proves one cannot be sinless and that no one can keep the laws of God. That is simply false. If one is not made sinless at salvation, in that all sins that are past are forgiven and under the blood and ones heart made white as snow and blameless, they are not converted. There is no reason why a converted man cannot walk in that purified state, walking righteously before the Lord subsequent to that cleansing with the help proffered by the Holy Spirit. Even if he does sin subsequent to being cleansed, he can do his first works over and receive renewed cleansing and continue from that point sinless. Walking sinless does not signify that one has not sinned in the past nor that they cannot sin in the future. It is a state where all past sins are covered by the blood and one is currently walking in obedience with the Lord with the help of the Holy Spirit. We should all strive to walk such a consistent walk with the Lord.

“Deeper Experiences of Famous Christians” gives clear testimony to such holy lives before the Lord. It is an excellent read.

According to what you have posted you are either sinless or not saved.
Now you have posted this dilemma. How would you answer it?

 

[DHK]

This is the "semantics" issue to which I refer. The Law of Moses contained a sacrificial means to remediate "accidental" breakings of the Law. So as, you seem to be saying, Paul almost certainly did not keep the Law in the stringent sense that he never ever "broke" a dictate of the Law. I will agree that there were times when he probably did indeed break the law in this sense.

However, there are ways that the Law of Moses can be broken that are beyond remediation by the practices of sacrifice. This is the so-called "sinning with a high hand" - sinning intentionally.

Paul's statement of Pjillipians 3 does not requires that we understand that Paul never accidentally broke the Law of Moses, but it does require us to understand that he never broke it "with a high hand" - with deliberate, considered intent.

NO, it doesn't say that. It points out that he was a zealous man before he was saved sincerely believing that he was doing the will of God. That is the intent of that passage.

 

[Andre]

Let's not philosophize, or play games of semantics. We know the truth. I will allow you to demonstrate it and give evidence.

This is evasion. I specifically countered your argument and you refuse to engage my counter-argument.

We know that Jesus was sinless in every area concerning the law. He was completely sinless in all things.

Well, Jesus certainly implicitly counseled others to break the Law of Moses. In Mark 7, He declares that all foods are clean, in direct contradiction to the Levitical kosher laws that are part of the Law of Moses. And Jesus also "broke" the Law of Moses in the sense that He very deliberately came into physical contact with lepers and with a woman with a menstrual discharge. All these activities made Jesus unclean according to the Law of Moses.

Now since the Law of Moses comes to an end at the cross, it is not at all surprising that Jesus would "symbolize" its imminent retirement by "breaking" the Law. This, of course, does not make Jesus a sinner.

Give evidence of one person that was sinless. If there is a possibility that someone has kept all the law, then where is that person?

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

Sin is a transgression of the law. 1John 3:4

Not the complete picture, if you are referring to the Law of Moses when you assert that sin is "transgression of the law". Here in Romans 5, Paul is clear that people did sin even before the Law of Moses was instituted:

Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned-
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come

Paul cannot be misunderstood - "sin" has an existence outside of the Law of Moses. If this were not so, Paul would not be able to claim that sin was in the world before the advent of the Law of Moses.

 

[Andre]

NO, it doesn't say that. It points out that he was a zealous man before he was saved sincerely believing that he was doing the will of God. That is the intent of that passage.

We disagree, and I am willing to let this particular matter drop for now.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, Jesus certainly implicitly counseled others to break the Law of Moses. In Mark 7, He declares that all foods are clean, in direct contradiction to the Levitical kosher laws that are part of the Law of Moses.

In Mark 7 the dispute is over the eating of "wheat" with unwashed (unbaptized) hands. Christ said in Mark 7 that this was a man-made tradition and he claimed that the tradition was worthless. There was never a suggestion about baptizing your hands before eating wheat in the OT.

In Mark 7 Christ explicitly condemns the Jewish leaders for "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" then he adds this

8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

And Jesus also "broke" the Law of Moses in the sense that He very deliberately came into physical contact with lepers and with a woman with a menstrual discharge.

The OT priests were given the job of examining those who were unclean to determine their condition.

Arguing that Christ was breaking His own scripture by healing the sick is almost a Jewish opposition POV rather than something you can get from the OT.

Now since the Law of Moses comes to an end at the cross,

There is no "Law of Moses came to an end at the cross" statement in all of scripture.

But more to the point - if it did come to an end at the cross then NT authors should not have continued to quote the writings of Moses "authorotatively" as if that part of scripture still had value and authority.

Also - Christ should not have done anything to sidestep or oppose His Word in that regard UNTIL AFTER the cross - which means that your pre-cross examples would be cases of true sin in the life of Christ.

Also we note that Christ's precross argument in Matt 5 is that He is not breaking the law and he is not teaching anyone else to break the Law.

it is not at all surprising that Jesus would "symbolize" its imminent retirement by "breaking" the Law.

The Jews were constantly accusing Christ of breaking the Law (violating scripture) and he was constantly denying it.

This, of course, does not make Jesus a sinner.

According to POSt-Cross texts like 1John 3:4 SIN IS transgression of the Law. Paul himself states in Romans 7 that sin is DEFINED by God's Law.

Not the complete picture, if you are referring to the Law of Moses when you assert that sin is "transgression of the law". Here in Romans 5, Paul is clear that people did sin even before the Law of Moses was instituted:

Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned-
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come

It is true that the written form of the Law did not BEGIN the Law of God.

Moses reports that God said of Abraham "He kept my LAWS my Statutes and my Commandments". Then Moses reports that God tells Israel to KEEP His "Laws, Statutes and Commandments".

John's point remains - SIN is defined as "transgression of the Law".

in Christ,

Bob