And here is had, for me, a perplexity (which moves in one of my questions):
If it is that sin in its concentrated definition “is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4), how then can Paul so say “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Romans 5:13)? For surely the law imputes, and doubtlessly sin is transgression of the law, but if this is so then how can there be one without the other as the apostle implies–sin before Moses (e.g., Genesis 4:7), but no law before him.