CR states,
As you indicate, a crucial part of Cain's complaint is that "whoever finds me will kill me." Cain is hereby claiming that people will be trying to translate the eternal law against murder into positive law which by definition differs from eternal law (among other ways) in that it has a penalty that's executed by human beings, i.e., through moral free agency.
Charles, with all due respect, you are reading the text with preconceived ideas of how it should be translated—i.e. your laws, CR shaded style <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />. If you begin with a false hermeneutic, then you will not interpret the text accurately.
Besides the arguments I have already made and remain un-refuted, you can see that positive law had to be in effect in Cain’s day simply by looking at these texts:
Gen 4:20-22 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.
Now, above you see “tents,” “livestock,” “harps,” “flutes,” “tools,” and materials such as “bronze,” and “iron,” mentioned in the text. Do you think these may have been traded or sold? After all, the people that played the harp or mined ore could not eat the harps and ore. How do you think the “bronze” and “iron” were mined – for free, or sold or traded? Cain even built a whole city (Gen. 4:17). Was this for free? Abel did not always JUST eat from his flock, nor Cain JUST eat from fruits of the soil (Gen 4:2-3). If an economic system existed then it would be consistent that positive laws existed for trade, theft, etc.!!!
And note how did God hold humanity responsible for their lawlessness (Gen 6) without giving in some form a standard ("the law") as a measuring tool? And if there was a standard it can be reasoned that it must have been interpreted and thus positive law existed. Furthermore, while law can exist without grace, grace means nothing without existence of the law? Without law there can't be any right or wrong. What role could grace play in a situation such as that? How did Noah find grace (Gen 6:8) if there was no law?
CR states,
"Adam as covenant head was suppose to obey". Since he was supposed to obey it, he was supposed to enforce it on himself. Furthermore, as "covenant head", he was supposed to lead his wife by example. But I see no equation of headship and the use of force, anywhere in Scripture. Headship might entail the use of force on other people, and it might not. Prudence demands always erring on the side of NOT using force, rather than on the side of forcing compliance. If it's not spelled out clearly that force against someone else is needed, then it's always best to avoid using it. So I see no reason to believe that "don't eat" is positive law, given that positive law is law enforced by people upon other people.
CR, apparently you have not studied the issue of Covenant Theology very closely. Adam as covenant head was the KING of the earth. KINGS do more than lead by example — they enforce laws of a KINGDOM. To ENFORCE means that there has to be laws to enforce in the first place (in Gen. 2:15 we see yet another command,
to keep the Garden (
shamar, i.e. defend, watch, preserve, etc.)). Besides the actual text itself, this may be argued in various ways:
First, there are TWO main ADAMS in Scripture. We have ADAM in the Garden and we have the second man ADAM, or the last ADAM – Christ!
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Now, Paul could have made this argument only going back to Moses (if he was so inclined to agree with CR <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> hermeneutics), but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit he makes it going all the way back to Adam #1. What ADAM #1 failed to do, Christ (ADAM #2) did –
he kept the law. What is noteworthy here is that not only did He keep the law as God, but also as MAN – as ADAM. Christ kept the law as MAN and thus “positive” law (which has already been shown to come from divine law, et. al.) was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 5:17) …. Christ obeyed the 10 commandments (and much more) as Adam #1 was suppose to, but failed!!! To say that ADAM #1 was not suppose to fulfill the 10 commandments is to say that Adam #2 was not either? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Please note,
Christ DID MORE than just lead by example, He came as KING to conquer — the way that Adam was suppose to rule (Gen. 2:15,
shamar — enemy snake, Satan)!!! Just as Jesus, the covenant head of the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13, et. al.) had the authority to say, “thus saith the LORD …,” so Adam #1, as covenant head (Hos 6:7; Rom 5:12f), had the authority and obligation to say, “Thus saith the LORD, don’t eat.” Clearly, Adam had rules for what he and humanity were suppose to eat (Gen. 1:29-30 and Gen. 2:16) and do (Gen. 2:15). Adam was the King of God’s Kingdom – he was to rule! To misrepresent Adam’s responsibility and authority is to undermine Christ’s own rule in His Kingdom! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />
Second, this
same general principle is seen in the text(s) of:
Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Matthew 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Luke 2:42-43 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
As David was the king under the KING (LORD said to my Lord), so Jesus was the King of the KING, and so Adam was the king under the KING. There is an under-shepherd and a CHIEF SHEPHERD.
The point is KINGS rule and enforce
covenants – and Adam was the initial covenant head of the earth (Hos 6:7). Any study of covenants requires a look at covenant stipulations and restrictions. Thus, Adam, as a man, fulfills even your definition of positive law (i.e.
positive law which by definition differs from eternal law (among other ways) in that it has a penalty that's executed by human beings). Though the covenant came from God its stipulations were to be enforced by man upon man (God uses secondary causes, et. al.)! If Adam was not to be King of the earth then you would also have to deny that Christ was to be King of His Kingdom. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/heavy.gif" alt="" /> When the God-Man returns He will enforce the Kingdom not only as God upon man, but man upon man as well!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />
Third, sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13). But, original sin came into being with the fall –
prior to Moses. However, Adam and Eve
violated the 10 commandments, though they were yet unstated in Scripture (which does not prove they were un-written elsewhere, stated verbally by God, or upon the heart’s of Adam and Eve (Rom 1:19; 2:14-15)). But
death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14) because by one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (Rom 5:12). Thus, the law was in existence in Adam’s time. Later, the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly (Rom 5:20). As William Hendriksen (
New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans), states:
Rom 5:13,
Sin was indeed in the world even before Sinai’s law was given, as is shown by the fact that death, sin’s punishment, ruled supreme during the period Adam to Moses.… Yes, death reigned even over those who did not sin by transgressing an expressed command, as did Adam. See Gen. 2:16, 17. So, it is clear that even during the period Adam to Moses sin was indeed taken into account. Though Sinai’s law, with its expressed commands, did not as yet exist, there was law. Here the apostle was undoubtedly thinking about what he had written earlier in this very epistle (2:14, 15). And this law, with death as punishment for wanton transgressors, was indeed applied (see Rom. 1:18–32). That there was law follows from the fact that there was sin. If there had been no law there would have been no sin.
Rom 5:20,
Paul has been speaking about Adam and Christ, type and antitype. Adam transgressed a specific command, as has been shown. That happened long before the pomulgation of Sinai’s law. Now even before this there was law, as the explanation of 5:13 has shown. But at Sinai the Mosaic law came in besides “in order that the trespass might increase.” That was the divine intention in giving this law.
Lastly, concerning positive law and eternal law. Eternal law when foreordained by God included positive law as a secondary cause. Thus, you cannot fully isolate them when discussing the Bible as they require one another for definition and operation. Positive law could not exist except by the sovereign will of God and eternal law necessarily depends on the interpretation and application (resulting in positive law) of the law for it to be effectual. Thus, if there was eternal law in the Garden (which as it has been shown there was) then there was necessarily positive law in the Garden (Adam as covenant head was to enforce law upon humanity and to do this he had to interpret and apply the eternal law(s) of God).
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />
