Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

> [Moon]
> > 
> > Let S1 be the set of situations in which "you are
> > not under the Law"
> > hold. Let S2 be the set of situations in which "sin
> > will not be the master
> > of you" holds. We have "you are not under the Law"
> > => "sin will not 
> > be the master of you". It means S1 is a subset of S2
> > (the diagram of S1
> > is contained in the diagram of S2). Let C(S1) be the
> > complement of S1,
> > and C(S2) be the complement of S2. C(S1) is the set
> > of situations 
> > in which "you are under the Law" holds. C(S2) is the
> > set of situations
> > in which "sin will be the master of you" holds. In
> > order to have
> > "you are under the Law" => "sin will be the master
> > of you", 
> > C(S1) should be a subset of C(S2). But when S1 is a
> > subset of S2,
> > C(S1) is NOT a subset of C(S2). Therefore "you are
> > under the Law"
> > => "sin will be the master of you" does not hold. 
>    
> 
[Iver]
> Ahhh, I see now. But was Paul this logical?
> 
> 
[Moon]

The point is that 
we cannot infer something that is contradiction to what he
actually said. He said:
  You are not under the Law but under grace. Hence
  Sin will not be the master of you.

From here, we cannot infer:
 "if you are under the Law, sin will be the master of you".

My point is that if we interpret what Paul said in such a way
that something logically inconsistent with what 
Paul said is derived, something is wrong. 

When the Gentiles wanted to call the God of Israel as their
God, they might have envied the Jews who were under the Law,
which was given as a gift and as a sign of God's grace. 
In that situation, "not being under the Law" might have been
interpreted by some as "not being under grace".
So, I think we can interpret what Paul said as follows:
 It is true that you are not under the Law. But that is not
 the whole story. You are under grace of God, by being accepted
 to God through faith in Christ. 

You wondered if, if my understanding is right, Paul would have not said:
  You are under grace as well as not under the Law. So,
  Sin will not be the master of you.

It does not imply the contrast I mentioned above between
 "not being under the Law" and "being under grace". To the reader of Paul,
"not being under the Law" might have implied "not being under grace".
Paul wanted to cancel that implication. So he added "but under grace".
  
My attempt is being made under the assumption that 
"under the Law" here should not be construed as "under the tyranny of
or under the condemnation of the Law". It should mean here
"under the government of the Law" (which is positive, at least neutral)
in the same way this phrase is used in other places.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea