Imputed Righteousness???

[studier]

5:12 Through this (Διὰ τοῦτο just as (ὥσπερ) through one man (δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) the sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) into the cosmos (εἰς τὸν κόσμον) entered (iεἰσῆλθεν) and (καὶ) through the sin (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας) the death (ὁ θάνατος) even so (καὶ οὕτως) into all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους) the death (ὁ θάνατος) went through (διῆλθεν) upon which (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) all sinned (πάντες ἥμαρτον·)

I interpret this to mean - Because of what was just said (we can say that) just as through one man the sin (of that man) entered into the world, and through the sin (of that man) the death (threatened entered into the world); even so the death threatened began to work in all men, as a result of which all (who sinned) sinned.

eph' + dative relative pronoun refers back to a basis already stated and upon which the following clause was subsequently built.

Luk 11:22
But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein (eph' hEi) he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
eph' hEi refers back to a basis upon which the strongman trusted. All his armour was the cause of the strong man's confidence.

Rom. 5:12 ... even so the death threatened began to work in all men, as a result of which (eph' hOi) all (who sinned) sinned.
eph' hOi refers back to a basis upon which all who sinned sinned. Death working in all men was the cause of all men sinning.

Everyone was at the mall to see the magician. Well, we say that, but we mean most people at the mall were at the mall to see the magician.


Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

What did the fear of death subject people to the bondage of? Sin? Or something else? I'm open to suggestions.

I'm not sure how the chiastic argument is supposed to work. Is it A and A' are both causes, B and B' are consequences? And I'm not sure how one determines some argument was intended to be chiastic?

The soul that sins will die seems to describe the process from a physical temporal perspective. Obviously the soul that dies will sin makes no sense physically.
Physical death being commanded upon all because of Adam's sin leading to acts of sin because of realising one is mortal, makes sense. If one has a limited lifespan the pressure is on to achieve comfort and security while one can, and moral shortcuts become convenient. "The soul that knows it is condemned to die will sin" makes some sense, to me at least.

What sins did still-borns and victims of infant death commit to be subject to death?

Hi Paul:

Having this Rom5 and the Phil3 discussion in play simultaneously is a challenge at the moment. I've looked at this Rom5:12-21 in some depth this morning. A couple things had caught my attention when I looked at it a few days ago after reading this post of yours. I'm going to start with a few observations I think are key:

• The epi + dat in Rom5:12 is an odd wording. After some review I think it's doing more than we had been discussing.
  • One thing I did was go back to the basics and look at some textual diagrams. The author of them saw this language as strange also and inserted a note about it. Essentially, he sees it as somewhat of a disconnect. IOW, it's not strictly tied to what precedes and is more focused on what follows. He sees it more as causal with the following explaining the cause.
  • I've wrestled with it this morning and in context through 5:12. IMO it is doing double duty. It's picking up what precedes it - sin entered into the kosmos/created order + through sin, death entered into the kosmos/created order + death spread within all men (I'm elaborating with "created order" because I'm attempting to show that this sin & death disrupted the entire order of the creation & is not just some thing floating around the world). As a result of this, death permeated mankind. It's important to see this permeation of death before Paul gets back into discussing sin, because he's going to be dealing with the reign of death and then the reign of sin by means of death (sin using death to reign - I think).
  • After this permeation of death, the partial disconnect takes place and Paul will begin to elaborate on how and why all men sinned. He'll explain how sin and death being in the created order and death having permeated mankind have all caused all men to sin.
  • In Rom5:14-18 Paul will explain the reign of death. When he uses the word katakrima in Rom5:16 & Rom5:18 it's important to pick up the meaning of this word. It's typically defined as a pronouncement of a penalty, but I've seen work on it that says it's more about living under the pronounced penalty. It's been called by some I've read "penal servitude". It's living under bondage, imprisoned. In Rom8:1 Paul will use it for the 3rd & last time and speak of how Christ has delivered us from this katakrima, which would get into our being declared righteous and freed. In 5:18 Paul begins with gar and is tying the katakrima to being the reign of death. Death spread to all men, and they were imprisoned under death.
  • Then in 5:19-21 Paul will take up the sin of men and conclude saying sin reigned en death.
    • As for imputation, I'm not seeing it at the moment as I was taught it. I'm not saying it's not here. I'm just saying I don't see it as I was taught it. Sin and death entered into the created order and death spread/permeated mankind. This doesn't seem to me to be imputation language. I'm seeing this more as what Adam caused or provided an entrance for, into the created order, that affected mankind (as well as the physics and order of the creation - dirt producing weeds, etc.). That sin and that death would affect all mankind.
    • The one thing I would take a look at is kathistēmi in Rom5:19. It has some range, but it is passive and can speak of being made or appointed or designated, etc..

Sorry, this is kind of on the fly and probably pretty cryptic. I've got a few things to attend to.

 

[PaulThomson]

Hi Paul:

Having this Rom5 and the Phil3 discussion in play simultaneously is a challenge at the moment. I've looked at this Rom5:12-21 in some depth this morning. A couple things had caught my attention when I looked at it a few days ago after reading this post of yours. I'm going to start with a few observations I think are key:

• The epi + dat in Rom5:12 is an odd wording. After some review I think it's doing more than we had been discussing.
  • One thing I did was go back to the basics and look at some textual diagrams. The author of them saw this language as strange also and inserted a note about it. Essentially, he sees it as somewhat of a disconnect. IOW, it's not strictly tied to what precedes and is more focused on what follows. He sees it more as causal with the following explaining the cause.
  • I've wrestled with it this morning and in context through 5:12. IMO it is doing double duty. It's picking up what precedes it - sin entered into the kosmos/created order + through sin, death entered into the kosmos/created order + death spread within all men (I'm elaborating with "created order" because I'm attempting to show that this sin & death disrupted the entire order of the creation & is not just some thing floating around the world). As a result of this, death permeated mankind. It's important to see this permeation of death before Paul gets back into discussing sin, because he's going to be dealing with the reign of death and then the reign of sin by means of death (sin using death to reign - I think).

• I agree. I see "to die you were/are/shall be dying" as the announcement of a process of dying toward a future death. This same phrase is used of Hezekiah when God told him he would die. Hezekiah did not die as soon as God announced "to die you were/are/will be dying". So, the process of physical degeneration, which access to the three of life would have arrested, began when Adam sinned, because access to the tree of life was cut off. This process of decay toward physical death has continued for all the sons and daughters of Adam, because we likewise have no access to the three of life.
• • After this permeation of death, the partial disconnect takes place and Paul will begin to elaborate on how and why all men sinned. He'll explain how sin and death being in the created order and death having permeated mankind have all caused all men to sin.
  • In Rom5:14-18 Paul will explain the reign of death. When he uses the word katakrima in Rom5:16 & Rom5:18 it's important to pick up the meaning of this word. It's typically defined as a pronouncement of a penalty, but I've seen work on it that says it's more about living under the pronounced penalty. It's been called by some I've read "penal servitude". It's living under bondage, imprisoned. In Rom8:1 Paul will use it for the 3rd & last time and speak of how Christ has delivered us from this katakrima, which would get into our being declared righteous and freed. In 5:18 Paul begins with gar and is tying the katakrima to being the reign of death. Death spread to all men, and they were imprisoned under death.
• I don't see any problem with both being in view. Once a judgment is brought down from the bench, the person judged begins to live under that judgement. The judgment bought down was "no more access to the three of life" which provided the regeneration needed to keep on living indefinitely. Living without the tree of life's healing power, is a judgment all Adam's progeny live under, so that all die.
• 
  
• • Then in 5:19-21 Paul will take up the sin of men and conclude saying sin reigned en death.
    • As for imputation, I'm not seeing it at the moment as I was taught it. I'm not saying it's not here. I'm just saying I don't see it as I was taught it. Sin and death entered into the created order and death spread/permeated mankind. This doesn't seem to me to be imputation language. I'm seeing this more as what Adam caused or provided an entrance for, into the created order, that affected mankind (as well as the physics and order of the creation - dirt producing weeds, etc.). That sin and that death would affect all mankind.
    • The one thing I would take a look at is kathistēmi in Rom5:19. It has some range, but it is passive and can speak of being made or appointed or designated, etc..

Sorry, this is kind of on the fly and probably pretty cryptic. I've got a few things to attend to.

I am really appreciating the way you are engaging open-mindedly with the approach I am experimenting with toward interpreting scripture regarding prepositions and cases, among other things. Your critiques are allowing me to see new aspects of verses that I need to also consider regarding the application of my evolving MO.
I became 66 years old recently, so barring lethal accidents or homicide, I can expect up to another 55 years of thesis and praxis. My wife and I are moving back from India to our homeland in June. Last November we bought a somewhat degraded 2 acres of orchard that we plan to bring back to health by applying permaculture and organic principles, and hope to be able to produce enough food to meet the needs of both ourselves and others over time. If you or @Mem or any other member here would like to keep in touch beyond Christian Chat, I can be reached at [email protected].

 

[GWH]

• I agree. I see "to die you were/are/shall be dying" as the announcement of a process of dying toward a future death. This same phrase is used of Hezekiah when God told him he would die. Hezekiah did not die as soon as God announced "to die you were/are/will be dying". So, the process of physical degeneration, which access to the three of life would have arrested, began when Adam sinned, because access to the tree of life was cut off. This process of decay toward physical death has continued for all the sons and daughters of Adam, because we likewise have no access to the three of life.
• I don't see any problem with both being in view. Once a judgment is brought down from the bench, the person judged begins to live under that judgement. The judgment bought down was "no more access to the three of life" which provided the regeneration needed to keep on living indefinitely. Living without the tree of life's healing power, is a judgment all Adam's progeny live under, so that all die.

I am really appreciating the way you are engaging open-mindedly with the approach I am experimenting with toward interpreting scripture regarding prepositions and cases, among other things. Your critiques are allowing me to see new aspects of verses that I need to also consider regarding the application of my evolving MO.
I became 66 years old recently, so barring lethal accidents or homicide, I can expect up to another 55 years of thesis and praxis. My wife and I are moving back from India to our homeland in June. Last November we bought a somewhat degraded 2 acres of orchard that we plan to bring back to health by applying permaculture and organic principles, and hope to be able to produce enough food to meet the needs of both ourselves and others over time. If you or @Mem or any other member here would like to keep in touch beyond Christian Chat, I can be reached at [email protected].

55? You must have good genes. Mine, if inherited, give me hope of about 15 more years,
although each year it gets harder to keep up with the yard work, so I am continually smelling the roses
(not literally in my yard, because the only thorny plants I want are my blackberry patch :^)

 

[PaulThomson]

55? You must have good genes. Mine, if inherited, give me hope of about 15 more years,
although each year it gets harder to keep up with the yard work, so I am continually smelling the roses
(not literally in my yard, because the only thorny plants I want are my blackberry patch :^)

By grace through faith in Christ I've inherited a vitality upgrade that I'm willing to fight the devil over.

 

[GWH]

By grace through faith in Christ I've inherited a vitality upgrade that I'm willing to fight the devil over.

Well, just in case, maybe we ought to speed up our study of Ephesians.
(Do you want to introduce 1:15-16 ? :^)

 

[studier]

I am really appreciating the way you are engaging open-mindedly with the approach I am experimenting with toward interpreting scripture regarding prepositions and cases, among other things. Your critiques are allowing me to see new aspects of verses that I need to also consider regarding the application of my evolving MO.
I became 66 years old recently, so barring lethal accidents or homicide, I can expect up to another 55 years of thesis and praxis. My wife and I are moving back from India to our homeland in June. Last November we bought a somewhat degraded 2 acres of orchard that we plan to bring back to health by applying permaculture and organic principles, and hope to be able to produce enough food to meet the needs of both ourselves and others over time. If you or @Mem or any other member here would like to keep in touch beyond Christian Chat, I can be reached at [email protected].

Thanks, Paul. I'll touch base via the email address.

Interesting plans. At the moment I'm going the other way selling and being mobile with the current and fairly long held sense that nowhere is home.

At this phase, for me the Scriptures are as they say an open book wherein, I don't have to rest in anyone's interpretations. I've read the "scholars" for decades and once one becomes comfortable venturing out to see what different camps and different thinkers are seeing, it's simple to see that we are all still learning and working to figure it all out.

With that said, I rest on the very clear foundation that we do have figured out. As best I know I am in faithful submission to the Truth that Jesus is YHWH's Christ and dia and en Him I am also in union with God our Father in Spirit. All the how's and why's and prepositional flows and technical legalities I know He has perfected and is still letting us seemingly endlessly sort through, just as He's letting men sort through the technical aspects of His Creation. It's like one big sandbox for kids becoming adult eternal sons in Christ. We'll know who and what we are when we see Him as He is.

 

[GWH]

Thanks, Paul. I'll touch base via the email address.

Interesting plans. At the moment I'm going the other way selling and being mobile with the current and fairly long held sense that nowhere is home.

At this phase, for me the Scriptures are as they say an open book wherein, I don't have to rest in anyone's interpretations. I've read the "scholars" for decades and once one becomes comfortable venturing out to see what different camps and different thinkers are seeing, it's simple to see that we are all still learning and working to figure it all out.

With that said, I rest on the very clear foundation that we do have figured out. As best I know I am in faithful submission to the Truth that Jesus is YHWH's Christ and dia and en Him I am also in union with God our Father in Spirit. All the how's and why's and prepositional flows and technical legalities I know He has perfected and is still letting us seemingly endlessly sort through, just as He's letting men sort through the technical aspects of His Creation. It's like one big sandbox for kids becoming adult eternal sons in Christ. We'll know who and what we are when we see Him as He is.

Does PT plan on keeping in touch on CC?

Re "scholars": Excellent point, and I reached the same conclusion.

While I appreciate the work of translators and what you two say on CC,
we all remain fallible humans, so the best interpretation harmonizes all Scripture,
but perfect understanding will not be achieved until heaven.

 

[studier]

Does PT plan on keeping in touch on CC?

Re "scholars": Excellent point, and I reached the same conclusion.

While I appreciate the work of translators and what you two say on CC,
we all remain fallible humans, so the best interpretation harmonizes all Scripture,
but perfect understanding will not be achieved until heaven.

What's fascinating about translation and interpretation, a part of which involves my & @PaulThomson discussions, is that there are many ways to translate Greek cases, tenses, prepositions, etc., etc. It's not all that difficult to narrow down the choices based upon context and other markers, but the fine tuning really requires harmonizing with other Scriptures. So, in effect, IMO both are required.

You previously mentioned math. In the NC Writings there are in excess of 300,000 words as I recall. Many of these words have not only nuance in definition, but also in translation as I above mentioned. For example, a word in the genitive case can have somewhere above 30 different ways to translate it. Other cases are similar in translational choices and there can be multiple cases in a sentence. Each preposition has several different nuances in translation (which PT and I have been discussing). Once we narrow this down in a verse in context, we are frequently left with needing to consider what another verse with all of its variables will provide to accurately interpreting.

There are many reasons we're still dealing with this after about 2,000 years. And we can add attacks, eisegesis, several systems of interpretation, various hermeneutical theories and methods, and incorrect harmonizing, etc. to the puzzle, also all done by fallible humans.

Maybe some kid is working on logarithms for AI as we speak. At the moment from what I've seen, we need to be scrutinizing what AI is telling us, and its input has already become part of these forums.

 

[TheLearner]

1. Romans 4:8
   Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Romans 5:13
   For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
3. Psalm 31:2
   Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
4. Ezekiel 33:16
   None of his sins, which he hath committed, shall be imputed to him: he hath done judgment and justice, he shall surely live.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

[GWH]

What's fascinating about translation and interpretation, a part of which involves my & @PaulThomson discussions, is that there are many ways to translate Greek cases, tenses, prepositions, etc., etc. It's not all that difficult to narrow down the choices based upon context and other markers, but the fine tuning really requires harmonizing with other Scriptures. So, in effect, IMO both are required.

You previously mentioned math. In the NC Writings there are in excess of 300,000 words as I recall. Many of these words have not only nuance in definition, but also in translation as I above mentioned. For example, a word in the genitive case can have somewhere above 30 different ways to translate it. Other cases are similar in translational choices and there can be multiple cases in a sentence. Each preposition has several different nuances in translation (which PT and I have been discussing). Once we narrow this down in a verse in context, we are frequently left with needing to consider what another verse with all of its variables will provide to accurately interpreting.

There are many reasons we're still dealing with this after about 2,000 years. And we can add attacks, eisegesis, several systems of interpretation, various hermeneutical theories and methods, and incorrect harmonizing, etc. to the puzzle, also all done by fallible humans.

Maybe some kid is working on logarithms for AI as we speak. At the moment from what I've seen, we need to be scrutinizing what AI is telling us, and its input has already become part of these forums.

All true, and I love your both-and logic, which TULIPists need to keep from being AI, IMO.