| Source: Presence.tv http://www.presence.tv/cms/conscience_adam_law.php Journal There is some disagreement as to whether the law has any binding effect on people today. There are those who believe in Jesus Christ who disagree as to whether the law is the rule of life for Christians. Then there are those who are believers in Jesus Christ who do not believe that the law is the rule of life for Christians but believe that all non-Christians are under the law, even though it was the law of Moses given to Israel. Of course there is also a debate among preterists concerning this latter issue. It is an incredibly difficult topic especially as we consider the fact that the law of Moses was given to Israel. I believe that an examination of the individual conscience will help us immensely in trying to decide whether the law is still a useful tool for today. Of course I do not claim that this article necessarily solves all of the difficulties involved--far from it. However, I think it will at least get us to examine the issues with which we need to grapple. The passage that first comes to mind concerning the area of the conscience is found in the book of Romans:
Here we have an obvious problem. There exist those who are weak. Notice what is considered weakness. Eating herbs. Now it is very likely that this is referring to OT dietary laws. The Bible says we should not despise such a one but rather regard him as weak.
In 1 Corinthians Paul also stresses this issue:
Likewise the weaker brother should not despise the one who is free. It seems the passage is supporting freedom in Christ, *nevertheless*, the one who does not feel free to eat is still regarded as weaker.
These texts in 1 Corinthians and Romans are crucial, I believe, in understanding the issue of a man's conscience before God. Now in the Romans passage, OT holy days are probably in mind. Regardless, Paul is expressing the fact that there is liberty in Christ. It seems clear, however, that just as the one who felt the necessity to eat only herbs was called weak, so also I think that we should infer that the one who observes days are weak. But remember whether weak or strong they can both regard such days as unto the Lord, but they *cannot* hold them as binding upon *each other*. That is where legalism abounds. Again:
But here is the issue. Obviously the Gentiles were not under the law. But they were commanded to abstain from certain things:
It seems that the concern was not to be a stumbling block to the Israelites. Now, back to Romans 14: Is this not telling us that this is a conscience issue? In other words, whatever you do, make sure you are fully persuaded that before God you are doing what is right, i.e., if you do not observe certain days and dietary laws, make sure that in your mind you are fully persuaded that what you are doing is good and pleasing to God and fearing God. This is not teaching disobedience to certain obvious commands like believing in salvation by grace, loving your neighbor, etc. This is talking about certain observances apparently associated with OT law. These people were not believing in a works/grace mentality, for then Paul would have called that gospel an "accursed" gospel. Rather, it seems to be referring to Christians who were feeling the need to continue observing certain commands. Concerning this issue of being fully persuaded in one's own mind, this sheds enormous light on the issue of conscience. In Romans 14 we have people that have obviously been given freedom from dietary observances and observance of days, yet they still feel compelled to keep certain laws and days-NOT for salvation but rather, thinking that they are in obedience to God, perhaps as a manner of lordship or whatever. What is fascinating is that the context continues to shed light on this issue of the conscience:
So we see that everything should be done unto the Lord and not before men or to please men or ourselves. Of course Paul emphasizes also the necessity for those who are free not to put stumbling blocks in the way of those who are weaker:
But then again Paul elsewhere emphasizes that those who are free should not allow anyone to place bondage upon them:
But I believe we should make a distinction between those passages in Timothy and Colossians in comparison with those in Romans. Those in Timothy and Colossians who were placing these bonds on the Christians believed that by not observing certain things you would be damned:
These men were accursed. But those in Romans simply were thinking that people should observe certain days or dietary laws, obviously not for salvation but simply as thinking that they were obeying Christ, like being gentle would be obedient to Christ. But Paul gives liberty and says that each must be fully persuaded in his own mind and not to place a bond on others concerning these commands. Likewise, the one who is strong in his own mind should not do things to make the weaker brother stumble. I think a perfect modern day example would be the issue of eating red beef. I have actually met Christians that say it is a sin to eat red meat. Now they would not say, 'I am unsaved for eating a big piece of ultra rare and practically bloody filet mignon,' but they would say it is not right. So then, they are weak and I am strong. So what is my obligation? Not to make them stumble. What is their obligation? Not to place any bond upon me, but rather to be fully persuaded in their own mind that what they choose to do, make sure it is unto the Lord, whether they eat or do not eat. So then, in Romans it is not a matter of whether the law was still binding upon these individuals. Rather, it was an issue of whether the individual still regarded certain practices as binding, not in terms of saving power but in terms of obedience to Christ under the New Covenant. Now, here is the issue: It is much more serious concerning the conscience of either side. Paul continues:
Look at what Paul says: "But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." We are talking about a personal conscience issue before God and not a universal binding quality of the law. That is, the man before God must consider whether he feels free before God to observe or not to observe. There is the famous story of a preacher who preached to a congregation among which was Charles Spurgeon. The preacher proclaimed that it was sin to smoke and questioned how anyone could do it to the glory of God. Of course everyone knew Charles Spurgeon smoked cigars. Spurgeon then stood up and proclaimed, "I will smoke my cigars to the glory of God." Needless to say, Spurgeon felt free, before cigarettes carried cancer warnings. So then, to the individual, if he regards something as unclean, to him it is unclean, but that does not necessarily make it unclean for others…only for himself. Paul continues:
Paul here says that it is an issue of love pertaining to whether we are causing our brother to stumble. God forbid that we might transgress the law of love as we exercise our freedom. But then Paul addresses the conscience of those who eat, offending their weaker brother:
Take note that the motivating factors behind the whole chapter is whether we are doing it as unto the Lord and because the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (this is another fascinating study concerning the conscience of God as it becomes free from the guilt of sin through faith in Christ…and specifically for the first-century saints, at the destruction of the Temple when their conscience was made perfectly clear when Jesus appeared without sin unto salvation). So we see that Paul is calling this issue of the stronger brother an issue of love. It is simply not love to put stumbling blocks in our brother's path. This becomes a serious issue, for then we are dealing with transgression in not loving one another. "He who loveth not his brother abideth in death." Therefore, we must give this great attention. However, there is the other side in regard to the weaker brother's conscience:
The stronger brother is happy in the things which he allows, but he that doubteth is damned if he eats. It is not that he is breaking any dietary law that damns him; rather it is that he is fully persuaded that in his own mind eating certain things is sin and yet commits himself not to obey his conscience before God. Therefore if he eats a certain food even though the food is not unclean of itself,…
… to that man it is unclean in his own mind. Therefore, if he eats believing it is sin, then in his own mind he is sinning before God because he is not eating in faith:
Now remember, this was after Paul had been given freedom from the law through the law of Christ (Romans 8:1-4). Therefore, it is not a matter of whether the law was done away. It is a matter of whether in our minds we impose any laws upon ourselves. Some people think that the regard of the conscience is a bunch of philosophical hogwash. One man wrote me saying: "all this philosophical stuff about the conscience and the mind are nowhere to be found in the pages of scripture." But I strongly contend with this ignorance: Paul said:
For Paul, as an Old Covenant man, had his conscience awakened to the fact that what he was taught was sin.
Obviously something happened to Paul's conscience once he was confronted with a law that told him he was a transgressor. Consider the law to Adam:
Of course we know that Adam was already naked before the law:
Notice that before the law they were not ashamed. They were in the presence of God. Certainly they were naked, showing their need for clothing. But they were not ashamed in His presence, for there was no conscience of sin. But notice what happens upon disobedience:
At this point we should clarify that Adam was very aware of the law before his sin:
Eve's response to Satan's temptation is also revealing of his knowledge of the command:
It was because they were fully persuaded in their own minds that it was wrong to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is not to say that they were free (in the Romans 14 sense) to disobey this command, for the law was given to them and they were under it. But something happened to their conscience when they disobeyed. The law that they had been given was that law that determined whether they could stay in the garden with God. However:
What took place in the garden was similar to what took place with Paul. Upon receiving the law he realized that he was a transgressor of that law regardless of how old he was. The fact was, when the commandment came, Paul was made aware of his transgression. This is called conscience of sins:
In the sacrifices was a constant reminder that the Israelites were sinners under the law. Those sacrifices were a reminder to their conscience that they were still sinners, and that when the high priest made atonement each year they could not enter into the holiest of all. The sheer fact that they could not enter into the holiest of all was the explicit testimony to them that they could not do something that only the high priest could do and that is to enter into the holiest of all. That is precisely why there is so much significance to be placed upon the destruction of the Temple. Consider how much stress the Bible places on the existence of the Temple:
So it is clear that there is association between the existence of the first tabernacle and the conscience of sins. The rest of the chapter testifies of this conscience of sins and that the complete purging of the conscience of sins was yet future for these first-century believers, while the first tabernacle was still standing:
The ultimate goal of the Messianic work and kingdom was to remove the conscience of sin (this is what Adam and Paul lacked, i.e., removal of the conscience of sins under the law). This was the final state and fulfillment of all Old Testament Biblical prophecy. Some professing Christians might argue that they still have a conscience of sins. If this is so, then they would have to fall under the category of still remaining under some type of law, for the Bible says:
The writer of Hebrews is saying that if those sacrifices could make the comers thereunto perfect and purged, they should no longer have any conscience of sins. But we must consider the context of chapter 9:
In performing His High Priestly duty Christ would accomplish something that was never able to be performed under the Old Covenant. He could actually bring the worshippers into the holy place with Him where the presence of God would be. But this way was not manifest while the first tabernacle (Temple) was still standing:
The destruction of the Temple was the outward sign that the worshippers of God were now completely brought into the presence of God, having their conscience completely purged of sins:
Similarly, the high priest purged all the vessels with blood:
So also, during the transformation Christ was purging the body of Christ (the house which consisted of individual vessels) from dead works while she was growing up into the image (complete righteousness of God). Just as there were various vessels that required cleansing, vessel by vessel, likewise, during the transformation while Christ was in the holy place, He was preparing the house of the Father which contained many vessels purged for the Master's use. This process of purging was taking away the veil for the believers in Christ:
This is that same veil into which Christ had entered but into which they were entering:
Once Christ finished purging all the vessels in this house (the house of Israel) He would then appear a second time without sin unto salvation. Finally He would perform that which no high priest could ever perform and that is the complete gathering of the household of God into the holiest of all. This is synonymous with the conscience of sins being purged. They were finally restored to paradise and complete communion and intimacy with God. This intimacy and communion is brought about by faith in Jesus Christ. Those who believe on Christ enter into the gates of the city. Remember how Adam was ashamed of his nakedness.
That is, he had a conscience of sins. He was cast out of paradise. Under the New Covenant we no longer have that conscience of sins, neither are we ashamed:
David said he would not be ashamed when he was directed to keep the statutes and commandments of God. Ezekiel predicted this time:
Notice the complete obedience to the commandments of God, the sprinkling, and how David longed not to be ashamed (i.e., have a conscience of sins), and compare with Hebrews:
David desired this day wherein he would not be ashamed or have this conscience of sins. He longed for this salvation:
The prophets spoke of this time when shame would be swallowed up:
In this last passage the context is speaking of the contrast between the Old and the New Covenants:
The reason she would not be ashamed (have a conscience of sins) is that she would be married to her Husband (i.e., face to face with Him in the holiest of all). Paul quotes Isaiah 54 as the fulfillment of the New Covenant:
Paul declares that shame is removed through belief in Jesus Christ:
The second appearing of Jesus Christ coming out of the Temple without sin would be proven through the destruction of the Temple. This would bring the complete removal of the conscience of sins for believers. John testifies of this:
On the contrary, God pronounced judgment upon those who held to the Old Covenant and attempted righteousness without faith:
We must expound upon these last two verses. Isaiah declares that the former troubles shall be forgotten and shall not come to mind. Jeremiah gives us insight as to what these former troubles were:
Notice verse 16. It says that they will no longer say the ark of the covenant of the Lord (i.e., the Old Covenant) neither shall it come to mind (there would be no more conscience of sins). Hebrews speaks of this ark and the conscience of sins in the same passage:
Isaiah speaks of the former things being forgotten in another place:
Of course we know that this praise would be shown forth in the calling of God's people out of darkness into His light:
Isaiah touches on this time of showing forth the praises of God in the following chapter:
The whole context of Isaiah 60 is concerning the uniting of the Gentiles with the Israelites and their being glorified together by God. Isaiah 65 continues in declaring the contrast of the new things as opposed to the former troubles that would be forgotten neither come to mind:
It seems very clear that through the removal of the curse of the law of sin and death by the work of Messiah, weeping and crying would be abolished. This of course refers to the sorrows and grief removed by Christ:
At this point we should acknowledge that for Israel the law was added because of transgressions. There are several passages that show this truth.
The law here is said to have been made for the lawless and disobedient. However, does the passage have any qualification concerning those lawless and disobedient people, i.e., Israelites and Gentiles or just Israelites? Well, in the context Paul does say:
So we are very likely dealing with Israelite teachers. However, these teachers were frequently trying to impose the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. James wrote to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Now to say that these teachers were "subverting" their souls seems to be implying that the Israelites were indeed bringing the Gentiles into bondage with their law.
This implies that there may have already been transgressions of the law even though they were not necessarily made aware of it yet. At first this may sound like a contradiction to Paul's statement in Romans 4:
This verse needs to be carefully examined in light of Galatians 3. If Galatians 3 is telling us that the law was added because of transgressions, then this proves that there were transgressions before the law was given. However, transgression of the law only works the wrath of God once the conscience is made aware of its transgressions, "for where no law is, there is no transgression," or act to work the wrath of God. In other words, God deals with people based upon their conscience of law, whether OT law or NT law or laws people impose upon themselves before God. So then it seems to follow that it was God's intent to show Israel's need for a Savior through the law. This law would drive her to Him. It is very conceivable that God gave Adam the law (thou shalt not eat) to drive Adam to Himself. But Adam instead used fig leaves to cover Himself. Those fig leaves seem to represent self-righteousness. This was the response of Israel to the law. Instead of being driven to find mercy at the hands of the Lawgiver, she resorted to justifying herself by attempting to obey the law for righteousness rather then looking unto God for deliverance. Paul seems to address the issue of transgression and accountability in these passages:
Now concerning the "all" of verse 12 I think it is important to know to whom that is referring. Verse 13 is very enlightening. It says sin is not imputed when there is no law. However, we cannot stop there, for the very next verse says "nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." The context seems clear: those of whom Paul is speaking in vv. 12-14 are the same people. Those in verse 13 were sinners, but that sin was not imputed, for there was no law. However, they still fell underneath the curse of death incurred by Adam's transgression even though they had not sinned after that similitude. Exactly what this similitude is, is very difficult to discern. But we must note that sin entered the world by Adam and therefore death by sin. So then we establish that "death" or awareness of sinfulness is by sin--hence Paul's analysis of his own situation:
He doesn't say sin was non-existent. He is simply saying that he was made aware of his sin when the law came forbidding that sin. For example, Paul could have lusted after a woman before the commandment came, however, he was not aware that lust was a sin until the commandment came:
What is evident is the fact that in spite of Paul's lack of knowledge it was still sin in the eyes of God. But that sin was not imputed to Paul until the commandment came. But Romans 5 says that death is by sin. So then this death (awareness of transgression [conscience of sins] ) comes through the knowledge of law. But Paul says he had not known sin except the law had told him that he was a sinner--hence, sin revived and Paul died. So it is clear that sin was existent, but Paul did not know sin because he had not known the law. Paul in essence is saying exactly what he taught in Romans 5. Because Paul did not know the law, sin was not imputed. Again, it is not saying that Paul had not sinned. It is merely saying that Paul had not known the sin he was already committing. This is where I think we may have to reexamine Adam's state before the fall. The Bible says Adam was naked. But it says he was not ashamed. That is, he did not have any conscience of sins. Once he sinned with actual knowledge of the law God had given him, he was ashamed (had a conscience of sins), for he realized the nakedness that was present before he sinned. Paul seems to be in the same situation. Paul did not realize he was naked (a sinner) before the law came. Therefore, is it really implausible to think that Adam may very well have been sinning (hence his nakedness) before the law came, and then once the law came he (Adam) was made aware of his sin? In other words, is it possible that Adam was sinning (eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) before God gave him the command? Remember, Galatians tells us that the law was added because of transgressions. So then we must ask why God gave Adam law. Really, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the law. "Thou shalt not eat…" Keep in mind that nakedness is never a good thing, for nakedness implies the need of clothing. But a man does not see his need of clothing unless he first realizes he is naked. This realization of nakedness is what the Bible identifies as conscience of sins. Another aspect of Adam's transgression is found in Romans 5:
This clearly teaches that death is a result of sin. But it is important to realize whether this sin was before the law or after the law:
It is not saying that without law sin does not exist, but rather it is saying that without law sin is dead. That is, sin is not imputed. Paul also says:
Here Paul declares that he was alive (no conscience of sins) without the law once, but in Romans 5 it says death came by sin. So then, it can be established that before the law came, Paul was alive, i.e., having no knowledge or conscience of sin:
Therefore, once the commandment was revealed to Paul concerning covetousness, Paul was made aware of his sin and sin was revived (made known to Paul) and Paul died (recognized his transgression before God). This brings us to a problem: If Paul was alive (having no knowledge of the sins he had already committed) before the law came to him (and Adam for that matter), then how is it Paul can say this:
Paul is clearly saying that sin entered into the world through one man. But it also says that death came by sin. Therefore this death must be that sin that was committed after the hearing of the law and not before, for like Paul, Adam was alive before the commandment came--naked but alive. The following phrase is extremely important: "and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." This is with no uncertainty declaring that the death which comes as a result of hearing the law and transgressing it, comes after the transgression when one has already heard the law. This is not arguing for an age of accountability but rather a time of accountability, i.e., when Paul heard the law that told him he should not covet, he was immediately awakened to the fact that he was covetous. The sin of covetousness he had already committed before the law came was now known to him. It was at this point that Paul died. Here are the two passages compared:
Again, in order for sin to revive it had to have already once taken place. But the distinction is made between the committing of sin versus the committing of sin with the knowledge of the law that says it is sin. With these things in mind, this passage is a little clearer:
In other words, God's wrath was not working upon Paul or Adam before the commandment came because they did not yet have any conscience of sin. This is also seen here:
Notice that there is a difference. Those who sin without law (sin is transgression of the law, therefore this sin is before the law ever came to the given individual) perish without the law. However, those who sinned in the law or under the law shall be judged by the law. It appears then that there is no judgment upon those who have sinned without law. Since death comes by sin (sin after the knowledge of the law), those who sinned without the law were alive (having no conscience of sins). This brings us to a particular struggle with one of Paul's statement in Romans 5:
Since Adam and Eve seem to be a strong type of Israel under the law (Eve) bound to her old man (Adam, or the first man), it might follow that just as there was sin among Israel before the law was given, but that sin was not imputed, so also it seems there may have been sin in the world before Adam, but that sin was not imputed either. So then when Paul speaks of the entrance of sin into the world, he seems to be addressing the specific sin of Adam, i.e., his knowledge of the law of God given to him and the consequent disobedience to that law. The question is, How did death pass upon all men? The answer is "that all have sinned." Obviously sin here is sin after the law was given to Adam because it brought death. Remember, Paul was alive without the law but when the law came sin revived and he died. But what law if there was no law between Adam and Moses?
Obviously Adam died in the day he ate. The sin (after knowledge of the law) was first, then the death. So likewise, death passed upon all men for that (or because) all have sinned. Therefore, the Mosaic law of verse 13 not coming into the world until Moses does not negate the fact that men still incurred death upon themselves through actual transgression of Adam after law was made known to him. For we know that sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
But Paul's thought is difficult in Romans 5:
Since we have already learned that death comes when the commandment comes, vv.13,14 seem to contradict this idea. But this is where we must examine the covenantal nature and corporate impact of Adam's transgression. Consider the rest of the context:
Here it appears that God caused the death Adam incurred to pass upon all men even though all men did not necessarily sin under the law of Moses, because that law had not yet been given. Thus, Adam's original sin covenantally affected all descendants inasmuch as Christ's original righteousness affected all in Him. In other words, just as we did not necessarily do anything to earn Christ's righteousness and yet it was imputed, so also those under the death of Adam did not necessarily transgress any revealed law to earn Adam's death, even though we're told that death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. Through Adam's transgression of revealed law, the curse of death passed upon all men who were committing sins even though law was not yet revealed to them. They still died because Adam, the first covenant man, sinned, thus contracting death for all descendants, even those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. So likewise, through Christ, the second covenant Man, all in Him and His covenant have life, even though they did not directly do anything to earn that life in Him. Certainly those under the covenant of the death of Adam sinned, but they did not sin with revealed commandment. In the same way it could be said that those under the covenant of Christ believed (specifically Old Covenant believers before Christ), but they did not necessarily believe having received the revealed Gospel of Christ. So then, under the law of Moses, the revealed law worked wrath and they were judged by that law. Likewise, under the law of Christ, the revealed law (the Gospel of Christ) worked life to those who believed God under the Old Covenant. Also, that same law of Christ works wrath to those who disobey, and they are judged by that law of Christ:
But for those who are believers, whether those who were still under the first covenant or after the consummation of the second covenant, through that faith, the law of Christ brings them righteousness. Thus, we can understand more clearly the forbearance of God for those who were still under the Old Covenant yet who believed in Him:
Habakkuk testified that the just would live by faith (2:4). Certainly the revealed Gospel was not proclaimed to these men under the Old Covenant . However, they believed in Christ as the concealed Gospel (Hebrews 4:2). They just did not believe in Christ as the crucified and risen Savior. That is the revelation of the Gospel. Therefore, the faith that they had under the Old Covenant was accounted to them for righteousness. This seems to be the implication of this passage:
From "faith to faith" could very well be referring to the fact that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith (faith in God under the Old Covenant ) to faith (faith in God under the New Covenant with the revelation of Christ and Him crucified). The rest of the context of Romans 5 solidifies the connection of those with the covenant of the first man Adam and those with the covenant of the last Man Christ.
Just as the offence of Adam covenantally affected those who were underneath him, so the gift of grace by Jesus Christ covenantally abounded to those underneath Him.
Again, here we have the same thought. We are speaking of those who are under a covenant, whether of death or life.
Notice that the offence of Adam came upon all men (all under the covenant of death, for that all had sinned) and that the free gift of the obedience of Christ came to all men (all under the covenant of life), resulting in justification to life. So our final analysis could be stated as such: Through Adam's transgression of the revealed law of God, death passed upon all men who sinned even though their sin was not necessarily transgression to the revealed law of God. So likewise, through Christ's obedience to the revealed law of God, life (because of the New Covenant law of Christ) passed upon all men who believed even though there was not necessarily a revealed New Covenant law to believe (speaking of course of Old Testament believers). So then, what is our conclusion concerning Cain? The Bible is clear that Cain disobeyed God:
So we see that sin was lying at Cain's door. Cain sinned in murdering Abel. The question is, Was that sin under revealed law or was it sin unto death because of Adam's transgression? Let us examine the progression of the conscience of Cain in the context:
First, we recognize that they were bringing offerings unto the Lord. It is highly improbable that these men suddenly had this desire to offer up sacrifices to the God of heaven. This is especially evident when one considers the unacceptable sacrifice of Cain. The sacrifice was at least unacceptable for one of two reasons: either it was a command to bring an animal sacrifice, or his heart was not right before God in making the sacrifice, or both. If the case has to do with Cain's heart not being right before God, why on earth would he be offering a sacrifice in the first place if it was not commanded? It seems far-fetched to assume that Cain would suddenly conjure up a desire to offer a vegetable sacrifice unto God when he did not want to offer it anyway. Therefore we should conclude that both men understood a command to offer sacrifices unto the Lord. This command was very likely carried to them from Adam or God. Adam certainly knew of sacrifice upon the provision of God for his nakedness with the sacrifice of an animal for the skin:
We also know that God communicated with Cain:
Clearly there was some way in which the Lord demonstrated to Cain that He was displeased with Cain's sacrifice. Cain was upset at God's disapproval, therefore he murdered his brother. Now we must consider several things here. Not only have we concluded that Cain and Abel knew they were to offer sacrifice. We also must realize that for Cain to understand that his sacrifice was unacceptable and yet his brother's acceptable in the sight of the Lord shows that Cain must have had awareness that God was pleased with Abel. Therefore, if God was pleased with Abel, Cain must have also known that to kill Abel because his sacrifice was pleasing to God would be to kill him of whom God approved. Thus Cain very likely knew that to kill Abel was heinous in the sight of God. Also, consider this statement of God:
God asked Cain, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" Here we see command for obedience and reward for obedience. Regardless of the obedience, it is clear that Cain was under a law that commanded him to do well and that his doing well would earn acceptance in the sight of God. After the murder of Abel, God questions Cain:
I suppose it could be argued that Cain never had any revealed law that said he should not lie, but it is difficult to believe so with such direct questioning by God. But since this cannot be proven with as much certainty as Cain's clear transgressions, let us continue. God declares:
Again, the blood of Abel would cry because it seems that it was a law not to murder. Cain is then cursed from the land for killing Abel:
This assures us that now Cain is aware of the punishment for his murder as testified by Cain's own acknowledgment:
Now certainly Cain would not declare this as punishment unless he knew that what he had done was transgression. Otherwise Cain, like most men, would cry injustice to God. Cain even seems to believe that the murder he committed deserved a just recompense, though he certainly was fearful of this recompense:
Another important question is this: Who were the others that comprised the "every one that findeth me"? Our text strongly implies that Adam and Eve had only Cain and Abel. But Cain does not seem to be concerned so much with his family. His concern seems to be for those other people who were also part of God's creation of mankind. People who as well had received the law of God concerning murder, for why would they desire to slay Cain for his murder of Abel unless they believed that murder was wrong? It seems that the origin of the absolute immorality of murder was known among these people. Not only this but God proclaimed that He would take vengeance upon any that slew Cain:
So then the punishment of Cain was accomplished:
Just a brief note concerning the presence of others besides Adam, Cain, and Abel:
It seems strange that Enoch would build a city for five or six people. Most likely those for whom this city was built were enough people to comprise a city. And it would seem that through the association of these men to whom the law condemning murder was given, this city would certainly be made aware of the transgression of murder and for that fact the existence of God and His the retribution He imposed for murderers. Hence, the knowledge of the "everyone" whom Cain was afraid would slay him; that to kill Cain would earn them the seven-fold vengeance of God. Evidence of the knowledge of the people of this seven-fold vengeance of God is seen with Lamech's statement:
Not only this, but many generations passed before Abraham and Jacob went to offer sacrifices before the Lord. It would appear then that at least the commandment not to murder and to offer sacrifices were carried from the time of Cain. Even more, consider these words of Jude:
Most translations place vv. 14, 15 in quotations as the citation is from 1 Enoch. The amazing thing is that Enoch was the seventh from Adam. Consider the elements mentioned to those who were present at the time of Enoch's prophecy: The execution of judgment. Now even though this was a prophecy against those in the first century, nevertheless it seems to apply at least to all who preceded the first century. And it would seem to follow that if Enoch made this prophecy, those around him would have some understanding of judgment, conviction of ungodly deeds, and hard speeches of ungodly sinners against God. If this is the case, then there was plenty of awareness at the time of Enoch of at least certain laws that God had commanded. So in this respect there may very well have been those who truly did have law revealed to them, hence, "when the commandment came, sin revived and they died." Also remember how Esau was designated:
Obviously fornication was found before the giving of the Mosaic law in that Esau worshipped his birthright over God. Thus he committed what Israel committed in forsaking her Husband--fornication or adultery). And:
Certainly we see that Cain's works were considered evil. Consider the case of Abimelech:
This is clearly before the Mosaic law, and God speaks to Abimelech as if he should understand that to take a man's wife is sin. Observe Abimelech's response:
Abimelech did not say, 'But God, no one told me it was wrong to sleep with another man's wife!' Rather, Abimelech justified his willingness to lie with Abraham's wife because Abraham lied to Abimelech in saying that she was his (Abraham's) sister. Beyond this Abimelech says that in the integrity of his heart and innocency of his hand he had done this. The implication is that if he had known that it was Abraham's wife, his heart would not have had integrity nor would his hands have been innocent. Thus, his statement is clearly declaring that he had knowledge that in adultery there is no integrity or innocence. Therefore, there is guilt. Why? The only conclusion is that God had revealed these laws to them. Though it is not recorded in explicit terms, nevertheless we can deduce from Abimelech's response that he understood that adultery was a sin. Even God identified it as sin:
God also declared what would have been the judgment for Abimelech:
God would have slain Abimelech. Upon confrontation with Abraham for his lie, Abimelech addresses the wickedness of Abraham and the identification of adultery as sin:
Abimelech calls adultery sin and also accuses Abraham of bringing upon him and his kingdom a great sin; and that the deeds Abraham had done to Abimelech ought not to have been done. So then not only is adultery seen to have been forbidden, but also lying and bringing disaster upon a kingdom through allowing a man to sin in not warning him. Obviously Abraham and Abimelech were well aware of certain sins and the punishments due unto them for those committing those sins. Joseph recognized adultery as sin as well in his fleeing the temptation of Potiphar's wife:
His identifying the sin as great wickedness conveys the fact that God viewed adultery with severe distaste. Even the brothers of Joseph were aware of their sin in that they were in acknowledgment of guilt thinking they had slain their brother:
So we see the brothers declaring their own guilt and Reuben declaring their sin. Even the Gentile Pharaoh was aware of his sin against the God of Israel:
We conclude then that we are not necessarily dealing with men who were without law or conscience of commandments at all. Rather, we are dealing with the offspring of Adam who had much knowledge Also, it would seem that through Adam the laws were given and spread to those underneath that particular covenant. Whether Pharaoh was of the lineage of Adam or not, nevertheless he understood his rebellion against God (whether he ever truly repented or not). Under the New Covenant, the revealed law or command is specific:
This is the revealed law of the New Covenant. Those who transgress this law remain under sorer punishment than those who transgressed the Old Covenant law of Moses. Jesus described this unbelief as sin:
So then, back to our original issue: How is the conscience made aware of sin today? Certainly the conscience is made aware of the sin against New Covenant law when that law is revealed. In fact, there is evidence that it had been better if some who heard the law of Christ (the way of righteousness) had never known it:
We should note that if they had never known the way of righteousness, these apostate Israelites still would have undergone the destruction by the Romans. So then the fact that it would have been better if they had not known the way of righteousness implies that there would be a greater spiritual judgment different from the destruction by the Romans. The Gospel, therefore, is the means by which God judges men. Their conscience is exposed to the holiness of Christ and His deity, thus they run from the light just as the Jews did lest their deeds should be exposed. They love not the Lord Jesus Christ:
The passage does not say if any man disobey the law of Moses let him be Anathema. The focus is on the hatred of men for Jesus Christ. Those to whom the Gospel is revealed fall under the terrible judgment of Christ and the separation from His glory under that dreadful judgment. Regardless of whether that judgment continues after physical death is not the issue. The fact is that the judgment comes upon presentation of the Gospel and the subsequent rejection of that Gospel by the non-elect. This execution of judgment upon the heathen since A.D. 70 was foretold:
Through the presentation of the Gospel, the heathen have their consciences awakened to the reality of a reigning King who is the dreadful and terrible Sovereign of creation. Other passages speak of this judgment upon the heathen:
Some would like to suppose that nations here refer to Israelites. However, when compared with similar passages dealing with the rod of iron, this position seems untenable:
The heathen clearly represent the Gentiles:
Acts shows this prophecy as fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ which was accomplished by God through the Israelites as well as the Gentiles:
This next passage is very strong concerning the judgment that comes upon the nations as a result of not worshipping the King of kings:
The reason for the above passages is to show that the revelation of the Gospel has been made known to the nations, and that those nations fall under the judgment of that Gospel. Again we are dealing with the conscience and its exposure to the Gospel. Here we need to analyze what we did in the beginning of our study, and that is each man's conscience before God. As we noted, Romans 14 is very clear concerning what the Christian individual regards as sin:
There is not necessarily sin in either case, rather the passage identifies a weaker brother and a stronger brother. Neither should be against the other in terms of judgment but by love serving one another by not causing the other to stumble. Paul makes a very strong statement concerning freedom:
Then concerning the weaker brother he writes:
The issue here is that there is no bondage or command concerning dietary laws. As far as Paul is concerned those things were abrogated. Therefore, Paul is dealing exclusively with the conscience that condemns itself before God for whatever reason. The word for condemned apparently is exclusively used in a sense implying that there would be no salvation for such a one. Paul simply uses the example of days, eating, and drinking to show that if certain people believe that there are certain things they can or cannot do, not only should those who are stronger not cause them to stumble, but those who are weaker should be fully persuaded in their own mind. If they believe in their own minds that eating or drinking certain things is sin, then they should follow through with abstinence. Why? Not because it is sin to partake of those things, but because their mind is fully persuaded that it is sin but they are willing to transgress anyway. This shows their mindset toward God in regard to those certain issues. Even though their profession is legalistic they do not follow up with their profession. Thus they are damned if they eat because they are not eating in faith that it is just and pure before God. Paul exclaims that whatever is not of faith is sin. That is the problem. It is a conscience issue before God and has nothing to do with binding laws. This brings us to an extremely important issue concerning the law and commands. If a person in his own mind honestly believes that certain aspects of the law which was given to Israel applies to him, then what is the difference between him and the person in Romans 14? After all, the person in Romans 14 was not bound by the law, yet Paul said if he does impose certain laws upon himself, they should obey those laws being fully persuaded in his own mind. Thus it boils down to an issued between God and the individual rather than the individual under the law of a particular covenant nation. Certainly in the New Testament there are commands to love each other, to be patient, longsuffering, etc. However, there are abrogations of commands such as sabbaths, new moons, etc. But there were and are weaker brethren who do still regard certain days or drinks, etc., as still binding--not for salvation, but thinking they are still necessary under the New Covenant. Of course those who believe they are for salvation are condemned:
It seems to me that those who, in their own mind, place themselves under the law that was given to Israel, whether in part or in whole, still fall under the category of justifying themselves by works. For even though the law has passed, nevertheless they believe in their own minds that they are under it. Therefore, they are obligated by God to keep it. And certainly they cannot, therefore they are damned, believing they can attain righteousness by self-effort. The same is true with any obligation an individual places upon himself. If he places such an obligation to justify himself, he is damned. If he claims to be a Christian and says its not required for salvation, yet is a command, and just disregards it in doubt, he is damned according to Paul. Why? Because it is not in faith. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." It seems that the faith here does not necessarily stop at faith that the obedience or lack thereof is right or wrong. It is probably connected with the fact that if we are truly believers in Christ, we will not impose commands upon ourselves that are extra-Biblical only to break them in lack of faith and doubt. Paul seems to be saying that in doing so, one shows there lack of faith in God altogether. Paul is not arguing for perfection in obedience in order to be saved. Rather, he is arguing that the mind who imposes a certain law upon itself and yet disobeys it, is most likely a legalist who really is trusting in his self-righteousness just as the Pharisees:
However, through Christ we have freedom and our conscience is not under law but purged from sin. Therefore we follow the law of Christ in believing Him and loving His people:
Ward Fenley resides in Lake Powell, Arizona with his wife and sons. He is the author of The Second Coming of Jesus Christ Already Happened, and owns and operates the website, http://www.eschatology.com. This article was published in the Fall 2004 issue of Living Presence Journal, Vol 14, No. 4. © 2010 by Presence. Transmillennial is a registered trademark of the Council on Transmillennialism, http://www.transmillennial. All Rights Reserved.Top of Page |
