One of the funniest modern theological mistakes is when people read the word “law” in the Bible and immediately imagine a giant invisible legal system floating over every human being since Adam.
That is not how covenants worked in the ancient world.
The Bible itself describes multiple covenants, each with different people, signs, obligations, and purposes. Yet modern readers flatten all of them into one giant universal system and then act as if Adam, Abel, Cain, Egyptians, Chinese dynasties, Vikings, and modern Malaysians were all secretly standing at Mount Sinai together waiting for Moses.
It is historically absurd.
The Bible itself distinguishes covenants repeatedly.
The Adamic arrangement in Genesis is not the Mosaic covenant.
Adam was never told:
* keep Sabbath regulations,
* observe Passover,
* avoid pork,
* pay temple tithes,
* follow Levitical purity laws,
* report to Aaronic priests,
* observe Jubilee,
* or offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple.
Why?
Because those things did not exist yet.
The covenant with Noah was different again. Its sign was the rainbow.
The covenant with Abraham introduced circumcision.
The covenant with Moses introduced Torah and Sinai obligations.
The covenant with David focused on kingship.
The prophetic “new covenant” in Jeremiah addressed Israel and Judah specifically.
The Bible itself separates these covenant systems. Modern readers merge them together because they do not understand covenant theology or ancient legal structures.
Now here is the important distinction:
Knowing something is wrong is NOT the same thing as being under codified covenant law.
A child can know hitting someone is wrong without being under the Penal Code of Malaysia.
A man stranded on an island may know theft is immoral without being subject to the Companies Act.
This is basic legal reasoning.
Yet somehow when people approach the Bible, logic disappears.
They say:
“Cain knew murder was wrong, therefore Cain was under the Mosaic Law.”
That argument is completely irrational.
Why?
Because moral awareness and enacted covenant legislation are not the same thing.
Malaysia had customs and moral expectations long before Parliament enacted modern statutes.
Likewise ancient tribes had social ethics long before Sinai.
Human beings understanding basic social morality does not mean the Mosaic covenant already existed universally from Adam onward.
The Torah was an enacted covenant system given at a specific historical moment to a specific covenant people.
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy constantly repeat this.
Deuteronomy 5 explicitly says:
“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us.”
That alone destroys the idea that Adam and humanity universally stood under Sinai.
Psalm 147 says:
“He has declared his statutes unto Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.”
Not any nation.
Israel.
The covenant at Sinai was national, legal, and historical.
It was not some cosmic floating legal code binding Australian aborigines, Mayan civilizations, Japanese samurai, and African tribes before they had ever heard of Moses.
This is where modern Christians accidentally turn Torah into something bizarre and ahistorical.
They imagine Sinai operating like some eternal metaphysical constitution hovering invisibly over all humanity since Eden.
But biblical covenants function more like enacted legal jurisdictions.
And this is where the Parliament analogy becomes useful.
Before Parliament enacts a law, people may already know certain actions are harmful or immoral.
But once legislation is enacted, an entirely different category appears:
legal covenant accountability.
That is exactly what happened at Sinai.
Israel became covenantally accountable under Torah.
That included:
* ceremonial obligations,
* civil obligations,
* priestly obligations,
* sacrificial obligations,
* purity obligations,
* and covenant penalties.
You were not merely “immoral” if you violated Torah.
You became a covenant breaker.
That is why prophets accuse Israel of breaking covenant.
Nobody accuses Babylon of failing to keep Passover.
Nobody condemns Egyptians for not observing the Feast of Booths.
Nobody judges Assyria for eating shellfish.
Why?
Because they were not under Sinai jurisdiction.
This distinction is exactly what Paul discusses in Romans and Galatians.
Paul repeatedly distinguishes:
* those under the Law,
* and those apart from the Law.
Romans 2 says Gentiles “have not the law.”
That statement becomes meaningless if everyone already possessed Torah from Adam onward.
Paul’s entire argument depends on covenant distinction.
Many also miss another major point in Romans:
The “Gentiles” Paul discusses are often connected to the scattered northern kingdom of Israel — Ephraim — who had been divorced, scattered among the nations, and prophetically called “not my people” before later restoration.
Paul constantly quotes Hosea regarding this restoration language.
Hosea 1:9 says:
“Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people.”
Then Hosea 1:10 says:
“In the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”
Paul directly applies this in Romans 9:24–26.
This matters because many of the sins listed in Romans 1 are specifically the same covenant violations historically associated with the northern kingdom of Israel.
Romans 1:21–32 includes:
* idolatry — Romans 1:21–23
* image worship — Romans 1:23
* sexual immorality — Romans 1:24
* exchanging truth for lies — Romans 1:25
* worshipping creation — Romans 1:25
* homosexual acts — Romans 1:26–27
* covenant corruption and social violence — Romans 1:28–31
These are not random accusations.
The northern kingdom committed these exact sins repeatedly.
Relevant passages include:
* 1 Kings 12:28–30 — golden calves of Jeroboam
* 2 Kings 17:7–18 — Israel’s idolatry and covenant rebellion
* Hosea 4:12–14 — harlotry and sexual corruption
* Hosea 8:4–6 — idols from their silver and gold
* Amos 2:6–8 — sexual immorality and oppression
* Amos 5:26 — idol worship
* Ezekiel 23 — graphic prophetic imagery of Israel’s whoredoms among the nations
Paul’s audience would have recognized these covenant themes immediately.
Even when Gentiles demonstrate conscience, Paul does not say they possess Sinai covenant membership.
He says they show “the work of the law” written on their hearts.
Conscience is universal.
Torah was covenantal.
That is the distinction people keep missing.
And then Paul says something even more devastating to the “everyone was under Mosaic Law since Adam” crowd in Romans 5:13:
“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.”
Notice how embarrassingly clear that is.
Paul explicitly says:
* sin existed before the Law,
* and the Law was “given” at a point in history.
If the Mosaic Law had already existed universally since Adam, Paul’s statement becomes nonsense.
Yet people still quote Cain, point at morality, and confidently announce:
“See? Torah already existed!”
At that point they are not arguing with critics anymore.
They are arguing with Paul himself while apparently failing basic reading comprehension.
Paul literally distinguishes between:
1. the existence of sin,
2. and the later giving of covenant law.
That is the entire point.
Sin can exist before codified covenant legislation exists.
Which is exactly what any functioning legal system already understands.
Modern readers confuse morality with covenant legislation.
But in ancient Jewish understanding, “the Law” meant Torah covenant identity tied to Israel.
To be “under the Law” did not merely mean:
“you know murder is bad.”
It meant:
you stood legally and covenantally under Sinai’s enacted jurisdiction.
That is why equating Adam with Israel under Torah is as ridiculous as claiming ancient tribal villagers in prehistoric Borneo were secretly under the Malaysian Companies Act before Parliament even existed.
The covenant did not yet exist.
And the Bible itself says so repeatedly
No comments:
Post a Comment