Law was an impossible system to keep

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
(Acts 15:7-11 KJV)

I believe you are using Peter's words in verse 10 to say that according to Peter, those under the law covenant were under a burden that they could not bear, and therefore you are concluding that nobody could actually keep the law covenant? Is that what you are saying? That Peter was affirming a constitutional, or natural or 'inherent' inability to perform the words or terms of the Sinaitic Covenant?

I am not sure that such a conclusion follows from what Peter said.

Here is the context of the issue:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(Acts 15:5 KJV)

Notice it was 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees' who began the issue, who raised the issue, and who created the disturbance in the first place. When a Pharisee speaks of 'keeping the law' he does NOT mean merely obedience to the old covenant, he means obedience to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law. The belief of the Pharisees was that God not only gave the written Law, but also gave an oral Law, handed down by the 'elders'. Furthermore, they believed that rabbis had the authority to interpret and apply both the written Law and the oral Law, by making rules or 'halachah'. These things become 'mitzvot' or commands that must be followed by all Jews. Failure to obey these mitzvot and keep halachah is viewed as 'sin'. Thus, for example, every Orthodox Jew (Pharisee) ritually washes their hands before eating or praying, and says 'Blessed are you Lord, King of the Universe, who has commanded the washing of hands.' Even though God never did command such a thing.

Christ repeatedly dealt with these people who had a man-made interpretation they called 'the law'. And now, in Acts, many of these same people have become Christians, but are still holding on to their Pharisaic traditions they called 'the law'.

Peter could not have been saying the written commandments of God were 'a burden that none of us could bear'. We know this because of some things that Peter said elsewhere:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(1 Peter 2:20-22 KJV)

Christ is our example, he did no sin, nor did he ever speak unrighteously. Therefore, we should follow his example - which would can only mean that we too should 'do no sin, nor speak unrighteously'.

Again,

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2 Peter 3:11 KJV)

Peter's issue was not with anyone obeying the commands of God, but rather Pharisees putting a heavy burden on people that could not be borne. In contrast, we read this:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light, yet some have said that 'grace is harder than law'? Notice also what Christ said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)

Now, whose burden was grievous and heavy and unbearable?

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:1-4 KJV)

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
(Luke 11:46 KJV)

Neither Christ nor the apostles taught that God had placed a grievous burden on anyone (except as a consequence for sin and rebellion, perhaps). Rather, it was the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers with their extrabiblical and man-made traditions - which they called 'the law' - which was a grievous burden that could not be borne.

Neither Paul nor Peter were arguing against anybody keeping any of the actual commandments of God. They were arguing against a)the Pharisaic religious doctrine, and b)attempting to be justified by the law.

Very good

The issue was the tradition of the elders "Mishna" vs Torah.
Big difference between Talmudic traditions and the Torah.