Law was an impossible system to keep

[Esaias]

VERY good. +1!

[mfblume]

Very good observations. However, law being an impossible system is still valid. Here's why.

Abraham, Noah, and Job were all before Law. And you made a great point, Bro B., in noting Abraham's faith was counted for his righteousness. And that faith was dependent upon Christ's cross.

The issue about Law being impossible is in regard to consistent lifestyle. Esaias wondered what I meant by that, and I tried explaining it as best I could. So, Esaias, not sure if you got my point. But consistency is the issue. None can consistently keep it. Anyone can refrain from adultery, for example, but consistently, even without lusting in the heart?

And the biggest issue that proves law could not be kept is its own inclusion of trespass offerings and sin offerings. There were offerings for failure to obey law. Adultery and murder had no offerings. But there were offerings, because God knew man could not consistently keep it.

That's the issue I am pointing out, and is what Paul was referring to in Romans 7. Sin rises up as an assassin and uses the law to slay us eventually. The eventual issue is the point to notice. It means consistency is the concern.

I really need to see someone deal with my thoughts on Gal 3 and the early part of Romans 7, especially verse 10 that shows us what the rest of the chapter is about. Esaias said only a sociopath would actually have the problem described in Romans 7, however I disagree. The consistent keeping of law cannot be done. It takes one's faith and dependence on the cross, if they're considered righteous before the cross, for one to be called righteous during that time.

And we may be at loggerheads on the issue of Acts 15:10 because I simply do not believe the idea that Peter was addressing Pharisaism is correct whatsoever in that verse, because he said their fathers could not keep it, and they weren't under pharisaism.

I'm not sure if Acts 15:10 and Rom 7:10 and Gal 3:10 (funny how they're all in verse 10) are sticklers and not easy to respond to, for reason that these have not been dealt with yet. Esaias did talk about Acts 15:10, but I'd really like a response to my claim that Sinaitic covenant demanded circumcision to enter the congregation as much as Pharisaism did. And that is what I need a response to.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I understand, yet we do have a righteous God telling His follower to do something. This isn't a suggestion made by God, but a clear command. We can't really say that God was telling His follower to do something which God knew His follower would be unable to perform. That would then introduce other issues which now call God into question.

Not altogether. Why would Paul dare make a statement that law was ordained to life -- that is, called by God and stated to give life, if he found it unto death? Paul was not placing himself in the shoes of someone who was dishonest and merely thought things he did not will to carry out, because we read he willed to carry to them out. I believe God did this with law knowing full well man could not keep it. Why? To teach a lesson, which is what I think is part of the schoolmaster role Law had. The lesson is that we need forgiveness, not rules to make us righteous.

Matthew 19:21-26 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (22) But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (25) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus knew the man could not do it.

Moses did say doing law would cause people to live. Lev 18:5. And that LIFE is really eternal life. It could not be done, though. And Paul said that life is contrasted to death that he referred to when speaking about his attempts to serve God being slain, so to speak.

Psalm 15:2 David asks a question in a song, and answers that question with the words "those who lead blameless lives and do what is right, speaking the truth from sincere hearts." Again, these items were the schoolmaster taking the small immature child on his or her journey to the Cross. All needed the Lamb of God who really did take away the sin of the World, Judean and Roman.

Why then does Paul say that sin is in the flesh and compels us to be unable to serve God. Again, I think the issue of Romans 7's words that law is spiritual and carnal people cannot fulfill it, has more to it.

[quote] Some Judeans couldn't figure it out because they believed the only way for a Roman to partake in the Passover was for that Greek to become PHYSICALLY circumcised and keep all the traditions plus Torah. Yet, they were to be reminded in Romans 3 that all were under the same penalty.[
/quote]

Yes. Because law was simply not enough. Being blameless under law could in no way mean the person was without fault, period. Why would anyone blameless under law be considered lost in sin, if law came to give life (Lev 18:5)? It cannot mean blameless to the extent the cross makes us...

Colossians 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

If blameless under law meant what blameless in Col 1:22 means, then there would have been no need for the cross.

Romans 3:25 shows how Jesus is the the real Passover! Just like the lamb in Egypt where Israeli and proselyte both were saved by the the blood on the lintel. I also want to note that it was only elders who applied the blood to the doorpost Exodus 12:21-22. In the same way it is elders who baptize new converts in Jesus name. Oh, another thing, I would like to also qualify my statement concerning both Israeli and proselyte (converted Gentiles) being saved together, Exodus 12:38 states that other peoples or a mixed multitude came out from Egypt, also Exodus 12:46.

Again we have God giving commands in Deuteronomy 5:33 that person must practice all the degrees which the LORD God had ordered them. This also had a conclusion which the practitioner of God's degrees would then be rewarded. Rewarded how? That they might live and that all would be well with them. Also an insurance their days would be prolonged in the land which they were conquering. Now, again should we take this command from a righteous God to be fruitless words given to a group where 100% of the listeners would drop the watermelon and fail to do anything He instructs? God commands already knowing full well that what He is telling them to do can never be carried out by anyone? Not even His remnant? Which after all that is why they are the remnant because they were the only ones to even care about following Him.

I think we have to recall what I said earlier. The LAW included sacrifices for mistakes and failures to keep it. God gave law knowing man could not perfectly keep it by involving sacrifices for failure to keep it. So, technically, if a person kept law blamelessly, then I think that strongly suggests they failed but used the sacrifices of law to make up for their failures. And of course the sacrifices pointed to Christ and God attributed the righteousness of Christ to the obedient lawkeepers who trusted in sacrifice once the Lord actually made atonement after Christ's entrance into heaven's holiest.

Righteousness in the sight of God, is just that. God giving you the label instead of you taking that label. Zechariah and Elizabeth are said to be one, blameless, and two righteous in God's point of view. You see, it wasn't about a religious practice, but a desire, a love, which makes the religious practice a by product, or should I say a fruit? So, those who wanted to enter into the land and keep it, had to TRUST GOD. Zechariah had to TRUST GOD, Elizabeth had to TRUST GOD which produced righteousness at the time of the Cross.

That is the key. Righteousness came by their trust and faith in God which was imputed to them when Christ's cross LATER redeemed them. THAT is the issue we have to realize.

Remember Abraham TRUSTED GOD and it was CREDITED to him righteousness because of his faith. Those who would enter into the land had to trust God through faith, like Joshua, and Caleb. Yet, even going into the land and staying there until death, really wasn't what they were wanting. But actually the Messianic promise of the Lamb of God who would finally take away their sins, and then the righteousness would be imputed. Philippians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and the topper being Galatians 2:16!

Amen.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

For example, a RULE that says we must come to the cross and accept it's work of salvation accomplished by Jesus for us, we are lost is a GOOD RULE, and is diametrically opposed to the NATURE of Mosaic law and Legalism because Mosaic law was a demand to earn salvation by good works, whereas LAWS of grace disallow us from earning grace.

well, i would call that a spiritual principle, but fine, that can be a law, if you like. I have no problem with that. Until you become the definer of the definitions for everyone else. That is my only objection. And ps, someone with both feet in the grave who is left with a skeleton church should maybe reflect before telling anyone else they are "wrong" so often, i mean, it isn't my church that is placing hands on the antichrist to shield him from satan lol. Just saying.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i would call that a spiritual principle, but fine, that can be a law, if you like. I have no problem with that. Until you become the definer of the definitions for everyone else. That is my only objection. And ps, someone with both feet in the grave who is left with a skeleton church should maybe reflect before telling anyone else they are "wrong" so often, i mean, it isn't my church that is placing hands on the antichrist to shield him from satan lol. Just saying.

When you can deal with definitions properly as in the case of legalism and law, we can discuss this in length. I've always wanted to.

And my church isn't any skeleton with both feet in the grave. lol

We're growing!

[shazeep]

mmmkay, go with that then.

[shazeep]

and i do mean that--if your model is producing fruit, by all means pursue it. However, in a wider context the shrinking of "your" borders should not be ignored imo.

[Aquila]

I don't know if this is even relevant to this conversation, but as I was reading posts I remembered a conversation I had with a rabbi (half of my ex-wife's family was Jewish). This rabbi said that he didn't believe that the Law was designed to be kept literally. He said it was a two edged sword. I questioned what he meant by that, and he took the law on adultery as an example. He said how the Law required adulterers to be stoned. He said that the Law condemns the adultery and expresses that the adulterers are worthy of death by demanding death. However, it also judges the heart of the one who would take up stones against them. The heart that could actually stone them, is a murderous heart, even though they are fulfilling the Law to the very letter. However, the heart that looks at the Law's demand, yet finds it impossible to do out of compassion, that person's heart is right before God....even though they refused to follow the Law's demand. It's almost as though the Law is saying, "See them? Their guilty! Worthy of death, kill them! Kill them! Kill them now!" The heart that drops the stone and says, "I can't.", that heart is righteous.

Now, I'm not sure about every nuance of that take on it. But it did remind me of how Jesus dealt with the adulterous woman brought before him who was caught in the act of adultery.

I don't know if this post even fits with this topic. But it was a memory that just came back to me as I was reading.

[mfblume]

One set of issues I would like addressed.

Thanks, all.

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is in response to an opinion that the bible does not teach Law was impossible for people to keep, alleging that it is a common but mistaken protestant teaching.

I strongly disagree. The bible does indeed teach no one can successfully keep the law. Here's where:

It was suggested that Paul only preached against using law for justification when he stated people are cursed under the law, and not that simply keep law caused a curse. That is far from the truth.

Look at what Paul actually said:

Galatians 2:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Yes, he did claim we are not justified by law. But keeping the law is seeking justification from it, whether we realize it or not. Law was made to justify people as Paul's quote from Moses proposes.

Verse 12 quotes Moses' words stating the man who does the law shall live. That means, eternal life is gained from doing the works of the Law. And that means law-keeping justifies a person. And truly, if a person could successfully keep that law, one would be justified.

Here is the mistake legalism makes with these kinds of words from Paul. They think Paul preached against using law to be justified. If that were the case, Paul would have said improper use of the Law is what is error, but he actually said keeping the law is in error. And the reason it's in error is because nobody can successfully keep it. Being under the law means one is keeping it. One feels one has to keep it. I will show all passages that present this as we go along.

Since law-keeping gives one life, then it stands to reason that merely keeping law would justify a person. That's what giving life to a person means. Paul referred to the same promise law provided for those who keep it, as it referenced living, in ROmans 7:

Romans 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

The law was ordained to life. Paul meant the same thing in Ro 7:10 that Moses did in his words quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:12. Keeping law means LIFE. What does it mean to have life? It means you won't die. Now, since everyone DIES physically, this is not talking about generally existing in the physical. Therefore, it can only mean spiritually. One will LIVE. That's why Paul ANOTHER old covenant verse saying THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. He did that in Romans 1:17 as well as Galatians 3:11.

Why would Moses says law-keeping causes one to LIVE, after having said the just shall LIVE by faith, if Moses did not mean a person would be justified if he or she perfectly kept the law? WHat happens is the way Paul wrote these things throws so many people off and they miss the intention due to the archaic language the bible uses. It is telling us that law-keeping was intended to justify people through works. It was not talking about ABUSE of the law, or MISUSE of it. It simply stated law-keeping puts one under a curse! Period.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

If you are UNDER THE WORKS OF THE LAW you are cursed. Period. It did not say if you seek justification by law you would be cursed. And the reason he mentions justification in verse 11 in the way he did, is because simply keeping law is synonymous with seeking justification by it. Otherwise, he would have written, "For as many as seek justification by the law are under the curse." But he didn't. In saying, "For as man as are of the works of the law are under the curse," and to follow that by saying, "No man is justified by law," is to imply that merely keeping law is seeking justification by it. And If one does not seek justification by law, and yet tries to keep it, one is simply missing the purpose of law.

I will share my thoughts on Paul's words saying failure in one aspect of the law is failure in it all in the next post.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't know if this is even relevant to this conversation, but as I was reading posts I remembered a conversation I had with a rabbi (half of my ex-wife's family was Jewish). This rabbi said that he didn't believe that the Law was designed to be kept literally. He said it was a two edged sword. I questioned what he meant by that, and he took the law on adultery as an example. He said how the Law required adulterers to be stoned. He said that the Law condemns the adultery and expresses that the adulterers are worthy of death by demanding death. However, it also judges the heart of the one who would take up stones against them. The heart that could actually stone them, is a murderous heart, even though they are fulfilling the Law to the very letter. However, the heart that looks at the Law's demand, yet finds it impossible to do out of compassion, that person's heart is right before God....even though they refused to follow the Law's demand. It's almost as though the Law is saying, "See them? Their guilty! Worthy of death, kill them! Kill them! Kill them now!" The heart that drops the stone and says, "I can't.", that heart is righteous.

Now, I'm not sure about every nuance of that take on it. But it did remind me of how Jesus dealt with the adulterous woman brought before him who was caught in the act of adultery.

I don't know if this post even fits with this topic. But it was a memory that just came back to me as I was reading.

wow, interesting!